Ford: Mustang News
04-16-2010, 02:42 PM
#964
17/26 isn't bad....my TL used to average 19/28. There is no way an E92 M3 gets 19.9 MPG 
I don't care what any of the editors say.
0-60 in 4.4....quarter mile in 12.7...I can't wait to get this beast. Lower it a tad, long tube headers, straight pipe exhaust, and an intake unit
I don't care what any of the editors say. 0-60 in 4.4....quarter mile in 12.7...I can't wait to get this beast. Lower it a tad, long tube headers, straight pipe exhaust, and an intake unit
Last edited by FiveLiterCheater; 04-16-2010 at 02:44 PM.
04-16-2010, 03:03 PM
#965
^11.5 mpg MT obs economy for GT
It was just MT fuel economy for the M3...not sure if that's any different than observed econ. Unless they did normal driving for the M3 and then posted the economy while testing the Mustang.
But, yeah....you're right. Even under highway conditions the 19.1 doesn't seem right. Especially since the EPA rates the M3 at 14/20. Perhaps it was a typo.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html
Nonetheless, I agree the 'stang is a beast and am very much considering one. I can't wait to take one for a spin.
It was just MT fuel economy for the M3...not sure if that's any different than observed econ. Unless they did normal driving for the M3 and then posted the economy while testing the Mustang.
But, yeah....you're right. Even under highway conditions the 19.1 doesn't seem right. Especially since the EPA rates the M3 at 14/20. Perhaps it was a typo.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html
Nonetheless, I agree the 'stang is a beast and am very much considering one. I can't wait to take one for a spin.
04-16-2010, 03:31 PM
#966
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
I'm going to enjoy my MS3 for 4-5 years, then switch to this. 
See? There are so many fun vehicles under $30k and $35k. Why spend more?
See? There are so many fun vehicles under $30k and $35k. Why spend more?
04-16-2010, 03:33 PM
#967
TQ > MPG
17/26 isn't bad....my TL used to average 19/28. There is no way an E92 M3 gets 19.9 MPG I don't care what any of the editors say.
0-60 in 4.4....quarter mile in 12.7...I can't wait to get this beast. Lower it a tad, long tube headers, straight pipe exhaust, and an intake unit
I don't care what any of the editors say. 0-60 in 4.4....quarter mile in 12.7...I can't wait to get this beast. Lower it a tad, long tube headers, straight pipe exhaust, and an intake unit
I think in normal everyday driving a combined average of 17-19mpg is reasonable for the GT.
04-16-2010, 04:58 PM
#968
Senior Moderator
The GT3 race car for the Mustang revealed here: https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...1#post11929281
04-16-2010, 05:19 PM
#969
It already has tuned shorty tubular headers and a CAI stock. I dont think you're gonna see tons of hp with bolt-ons like previous gens. Its already 415+hp with only 302CI and 11:1 compression.
I think in normal everyday driving a combined average of 17-19mpg is reasonable for the GT.
I think in normal everyday driving a combined average of 17-19mpg is reasonable for the GT.
04-16-2010, 05:20 PM
#970
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,317
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
SMS just unveiled their SMS mustang today, I happened to be there picking up my car.
They also got 2 5.0 engines from Ford...just the engines, one of which was on display. I didn't bother to take pics. But they are already starting to work with it.
They also got 2 5.0 engines from Ford...just the engines, one of which was on display. I didn't bother to take pics. But they are already starting to work with it.
04-16-2010, 06:01 PM
#971
Senior Moderator
SMS Supercars pulls the wraps off 2011 302 Mustang
by Drew Phillips (RSS feed) on Apr 16th 2010 at 6:55PM
<!-- sphereit start -->
<small>2011 SMS 302 Mustang - Click above for high-res image gallery</small>
It's been nearly a year since SMS Supercars first showed us a rendering of their proposed 460 Mustang. And we had nearly given up hope that it would ever come out. But sure enough, Steve Saleen and the rest of his crew have been hard at work developing the new SMS Mustang. That car, now named the 302 Mustang due to the V8's displacement change for 2011, was officially unveiled today at the company's headquarters in Corona, CA.
Two separate versions of the 302 Mustang will be offered, including a naturally aspirated base 4V model and a supercharged 302SC Mustang. The 4V will produce 440 horsepower thanks to a few powertrain tweaks, while the supercharged model will boast 535 horsepower and 450 pound-feet of torque.
Both Mustangs will have a slew of standard features including the new SMS body kit, hood with heat-extracting grilles, 20-inch wheels and tires, upgraded suspension and brakes, and numerous interior appointments including Alcantara seats, 200 mph gauges, short-throw shifter and more. The styling appears to be a mix of the previous generation Saleen Mustang, also penned by SMS designer Phil Frank, along with the new design language featured on the SMS 570 Challenger. We especially like the elongated rear end that helps hide the awkward taillights, although we would probably do away with the massive spoiler.
As you'd expect from a Steve Saleen product, each model will offer impressive performance figures. SMS quotes a 0-60 mph time of under 4.5 seconds for the base 302 Mustang while the supercharged version can perform the same task in just 4.3 seconds. A higher performance model is also in the works, named the 351X Mustang, which we should learn more about in just a few months.
Pricing for both models is just about what we would expect, which is fairly expensive. The 302 4V starts at $54,990 while the 302SC Mustang will cost $64,990. Follow the jump for more details on both cars or browse through both of the live galleries below.
04-16-2010, 07:30 PM
#973
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,317
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
The Wheels come in different finishes like the Challenger I'm sure.
EAch car is pretty much made to order. Their facilities are pretty awesome, so clean and well laid out.
EAch car is pretty much made to order. Their facilities are pretty awesome, so clean and well laid out.
04-16-2010, 07:56 PM
#974
I thought the 0-60 time was already in the 4.4-4.6 range. Supercharged only knocks off .2 seconds to 60? Looks good though, not a fan of the side skirts (flimsy/cheap looking) or the wheels...
05-01-2010, 10:54 PM
#975
C&D comparo with the V6 & V8 Camaro and Mustang.
You’re forgiven if you feel you may have seen this movie before, because you probably have. Like Hamlet, or Macbeth, its core is a classic confrontation that never seems to get old, thanks to the arrival of new players and fresh productions, as one generation succeeds another.
You may be thinking, “New? Don’t see no new here.” With little more than a year in Chevy showrooms, the Camaros roll into summer unchanged. And it takes the experienced eye of a longtime Mustang cognoscente to see the updates for these 2011 models. The dashboard surface is revised, softened to make impacts with one’s head a little less unpleasant. There are also suspension tweaks aplenty, but the real giveaway is a 5.0 badge on the flanks of GT models.
That badge panders to hallowed memories of the Mustang’s revered old Windsor V-8 (1979–’95), which, as any member of the Mustang club will admit, fell 58 cc short of 5.0 liters. Ford’s 4.6-liter V-8s never seemed to eclipse memories of the not-quite-5.0, but it may be a different story with this barely 5.0 (4951 cc) successor. All aluminum, double overhead cams, 32 valves, variable valve timing on all four cams, a high compression ratio (11.0:1), four-bolt mains—the new V-8 shares bore centers but little else with the 4.6.
Ford stopped short of direct injection, saving about $200 per engine, but output is potent nevertheless: 412 horsepower at 6500 rpm, 390 pound-feet of torque at 4250—burlier by 97 horses and 65 pound-feet. There’s also a new V-6 for the base Mustang, a more vigorous version of the 3.7-liter aluminum engine found in the Lincoln MKS and MKT: 305 horses and 280 pound-feet of torque.
With Mustang’s power now comparable to Camaro’s across the board, these two longtime rivals needed another face-off. We rounded up our four-horse field in Los Angeles and drove to Buttonwillow Raceway Park, near Bakersfield. Some of the results were predictable. But there were surprises, too.
Buyers strap themselves into V-6 pony cars because they like the look but don’t require V-8 muscle. Or, more accurately, they don’t need that power enough to fork over the additional seven or eight grand for two more cylinders.
In the past, this has meant a pony car severely deficient in giddyup, something particularly true of the base Mustang’s old boat anchor, the 4.0-liter V-6.
But these are no longer children of a lesser god. The V-6 Camaro and Mustang both come to the starting gate with more than 300 horsepower, as well as distinctly better fuel economy than their quicker stablemates.
So being thrifty no longer means having to give up fun to drive. But just how much of the FTD factor is retained? That’s what we set out to determine.
What you get here is the bad-ass, hunkered-down, assault-vehicle looks without the bad. The engine—a 3.6-liter, DOHC 24-valve aluminum V-6—is willing enough, but it’s tethered to a lot of Camaro: 3800 pounds. Mass plus big gear spacing plus the tallest rear end in the group equals relatively sluggish performance: distinctly slower than the Mustang in the sprints.
Handling responses were equally indifferent. Softer spring rates and slow steering made the mountain-road pursuits too much like work. To its credit, the RS was quiet, smooth, stable, and thoroughly predictable. It was quicker in the lane change than both Mustangs—go figure—and its braking performance was slightly better than the Brembo-equipped SS. But no test driver wrote the word “fun” in the Chevy’s logbook.
Inside, the RS sports the same mix of engagingly offbeat design, supportive seats, and one or two trim touches that don’t quite work: the big hard plastic trim panels in the door panels, for example. And, of course, there’s that high beltline and low roof that some find too confining.
But if cruising in sinister comfort appeals to you, here’s a good place to do it.
We mentioned surprises, and this was the big one. Not so much because of the straight-ahead performance—305 horsepower in a 3520-pound car, the lightest in the group, produced about what we expected: 0-to-60 in 5.4 seconds, the quarter-mile in 14 flat at 104 mph.
The surprise was what this Mustang could do on mountain roads. Where the GT was nimble, the V-6 was eager, with a lighter touch and better balance. Our test car was a Premium version, equipped with 19-inch alloy wheels and those summer Pirellis, which helped it put up the best skidpad performance of the foursome: 0.95 g. We’re not entirely sure that you’ll be able to order this wheel-and-tire combo with either the Premium or American Mustang Club packages. But we’re sure that this car was the dancing champ on the high roads of the Los Padres National Forest, one of the most involving production Mustangs in our experience.
This makes the car’s lane-change behavior equally surprising—astonishing, in fact. For all its agility in decreasing-radius turns, switchbacks, and fast sweepers, the V-6 Mustang was almost unmanageable in this exercise, scattering cones galore. Further study indicated here.
Our V-6 test car was loaded with optional features—leather, Sync, audio upgrade, power driver’s seat—making it almost as expensive as the GT and a more pleasant place to be.
There were several minor kvetches in the logbook. As in last year’s comparo, the V-6 Mustang’s capless fuel filler leaked in hard cornering. Ford’s idea of a power seat still doesn’t include power adjustability for the seatback, and the development still doesn’t include a telescoping steering column. The black-tape accent on the sides had an aftermarket look to it, and the latticework grille doesn’t have the cachet of the classic floating pony that distinguishes the GT. We’re also curious as to why a car with Z-rated tires is limited to a top speed of 113 mph.
But these are minor flaws in a mostly brilliant product. With its lower base price, its excellent road manners, robust power, and its outstanding EPA fuel-economy ratings—19/29 manual, 19/31 automatic (our barnstorming average was 18, best in test)—the V-6 Mustang can satisfy just about anyone.
“Gung-ho” is too tame a term for the Mustang fervor espoused by Ford staffers at the recent introduction of the new 5.0 V-8. Lots of cheerleading. Lots of enthusiastic hyperbole about the “next 45 years,” a time span reflective of the 45 years the Mustang has already survived.
Given the performance of the new 5.0-liter eight, as well as the new 3.7-liter V-6 and the slick new transmissions, the troops responsible for the 2011 Mustangs can be forgiven for a little innocent zeal.
But amid all the euphoria, we did catch one ominous portent of a possible survival challenge in the not-too-distant future. This came from no less an authority than Dave Pericak, the Mustang’s personable chief engineer. We asked Pericak about reaction to the new 5.0 V-8 in consumer group clinics.
He reported enthusiasm among over-30 types and outright jubilation among Mustang-club types. But it was a different story with under-30 groups.
“Everybody loves a good-looking car with power,” he said. “But a lot of the younger buyers won’t consider a V-8. They don’t even want to hear about it.”
Pericak and his cohorts perceive the challenge as educational in nature.
“Environmental responsibility and fuel economy are increasingly important,” he said. “But we can justify a V-8. It’s a matter of getting people to understand that a V-8 engine can perform efficiently.”
As a case in point, Pericak cites the 5.0’s impressive EPA fuel-economy ratings—17 mpg city and 26 mpg highway—and the even more impressive ratings for the V-6: up to 31 mpg highway, a first for an engine rated at more than 300 horsepower, according to Ford.
We hope Pericak is right about the future of Mustang power because we can remember two episodes when Ford product planners looked into the future and declared the day of the V-8 pony car over.
The first of these tea-leaf readings led to the subcompact Mustang II, which made its debut with a lot of Pinto parts and a four-cylinder engine. It was definitely not one of Ford’s better ideas, and was duly interred after five years (1974–’78).
The second was the front-drive coupe that eventually became the Ford Probe (1989–’97), diverted from Mustanghood at the last minute by a deluge of anguished mail from club members and other friends of the pony.
Well, good luck to Mr. Pericak and his colleagues with their education program. One ride in a Mustang GT could well sway some of the fence sitters.
You may be thinking, “New? Don’t see no new here.” With little more than a year in Chevy showrooms, the Camaros roll into summer unchanged. And it takes the experienced eye of a longtime Mustang cognoscente to see the updates for these 2011 models. The dashboard surface is revised, softened to make impacts with one’s head a little less unpleasant. There are also suspension tweaks aplenty, but the real giveaway is a 5.0 badge on the flanks of GT models.
That badge panders to hallowed memories of the Mustang’s revered old Windsor V-8 (1979–’95), which, as any member of the Mustang club will admit, fell 58 cc short of 5.0 liters. Ford’s 4.6-liter V-8s never seemed to eclipse memories of the not-quite-5.0, but it may be a different story with this barely 5.0 (4951 cc) successor. All aluminum, double overhead cams, 32 valves, variable valve timing on all four cams, a high compression ratio (11.0:1), four-bolt mains—the new V-8 shares bore centers but little else with the 4.6.
Ford stopped short of direct injection, saving about $200 per engine, but output is potent nevertheless: 412 horsepower at 6500 rpm, 390 pound-feet of torque at 4250—burlier by 97 horses and 65 pound-feet. There’s also a new V-6 for the base Mustang, a more vigorous version of the 3.7-liter aluminum engine found in the Lincoln MKS and MKT: 305 horses and 280 pound-feet of torque.
With Mustang’s power now comparable to Camaro’s across the board, these two longtime rivals needed another face-off. We rounded up our four-horse field in Los Angeles and drove to Buttonwillow Raceway Park, near Bakersfield. Some of the results were predictable. But there were surprises, too.
Buyers strap themselves into V-6 pony cars because they like the look but don’t require V-8 muscle. Or, more accurately, they don’t need that power enough to fork over the additional seven or eight grand for two more cylinders.
In the past, this has meant a pony car severely deficient in giddyup, something particularly true of the base Mustang’s old boat anchor, the 4.0-liter V-6.
But these are no longer children of a lesser god. The V-6 Camaro and Mustang both come to the starting gate with more than 300 horsepower, as well as distinctly better fuel economy than their quicker stablemates.
So being thrifty no longer means having to give up fun to drive. But just how much of the FTD factor is retained? That’s what we set out to determine.
What you get here is the bad-ass, hunkered-down, assault-vehicle looks without the bad. The engine—a 3.6-liter, DOHC 24-valve aluminum V-6—is willing enough, but it’s tethered to a lot of Camaro: 3800 pounds. Mass plus big gear spacing plus the tallest rear end in the group equals relatively sluggish performance: distinctly slower than the Mustang in the sprints.
Handling responses were equally indifferent. Softer spring rates and slow steering made the mountain-road pursuits too much like work. To its credit, the RS was quiet, smooth, stable, and thoroughly predictable. It was quicker in the lane change than both Mustangs—go figure—and its braking performance was slightly better than the Brembo-equipped SS. But no test driver wrote the word “fun” in the Chevy’s logbook.
Inside, the RS sports the same mix of engagingly offbeat design, supportive seats, and one or two trim touches that don’t quite work: the big hard plastic trim panels in the door panels, for example. And, of course, there’s that high beltline and low roof that some find too confining.
But if cruising in sinister comfort appeals to you, here’s a good place to do it.
We mentioned surprises, and this was the big one. Not so much because of the straight-ahead performance—305 horsepower in a 3520-pound car, the lightest in the group, produced about what we expected: 0-to-60 in 5.4 seconds, the quarter-mile in 14 flat at 104 mph.
The surprise was what this Mustang could do on mountain roads. Where the GT was nimble, the V-6 was eager, with a lighter touch and better balance. Our test car was a Premium version, equipped with 19-inch alloy wheels and those summer Pirellis, which helped it put up the best skidpad performance of the foursome: 0.95 g. We’re not entirely sure that you’ll be able to order this wheel-and-tire combo with either the Premium or American Mustang Club packages. But we’re sure that this car was the dancing champ on the high roads of the Los Padres National Forest, one of the most involving production Mustangs in our experience.
This makes the car’s lane-change behavior equally surprising—astonishing, in fact. For all its agility in decreasing-radius turns, switchbacks, and fast sweepers, the V-6 Mustang was almost unmanageable in this exercise, scattering cones galore. Further study indicated here.
Our V-6 test car was loaded with optional features—leather, Sync, audio upgrade, power driver’s seat—making it almost as expensive as the GT and a more pleasant place to be.
There were several minor kvetches in the logbook. As in last year’s comparo, the V-6 Mustang’s capless fuel filler leaked in hard cornering. Ford’s idea of a power seat still doesn’t include power adjustability for the seatback, and the development still doesn’t include a telescoping steering column. The black-tape accent on the sides had an aftermarket look to it, and the latticework grille doesn’t have the cachet of the classic floating pony that distinguishes the GT. We’re also curious as to why a car with Z-rated tires is limited to a top speed of 113 mph.
But these are minor flaws in a mostly brilliant product. With its lower base price, its excellent road manners, robust power, and its outstanding EPA fuel-economy ratings—19/29 manual, 19/31 automatic (our barnstorming average was 18, best in test)—the V-6 Mustang can satisfy just about anyone.
“Gung-ho” is too tame a term for the Mustang fervor espoused by Ford staffers at the recent introduction of the new 5.0 V-8. Lots of cheerleading. Lots of enthusiastic hyperbole about the “next 45 years,” a time span reflective of the 45 years the Mustang has already survived.
Given the performance of the new 5.0-liter eight, as well as the new 3.7-liter V-6 and the slick new transmissions, the troops responsible for the 2011 Mustangs can be forgiven for a little innocent zeal.
But amid all the euphoria, we did catch one ominous portent of a possible survival challenge in the not-too-distant future. This came from no less an authority than Dave Pericak, the Mustang’s personable chief engineer. We asked Pericak about reaction to the new 5.0 V-8 in consumer group clinics.
He reported enthusiasm among over-30 types and outright jubilation among Mustang-club types. But it was a different story with under-30 groups.
“Everybody loves a good-looking car with power,” he said. “But a lot of the younger buyers won’t consider a V-8. They don’t even want to hear about it.”
Pericak and his cohorts perceive the challenge as educational in nature.
“Environmental responsibility and fuel economy are increasingly important,” he said. “But we can justify a V-8. It’s a matter of getting people to understand that a V-8 engine can perform efficiently.”
As a case in point, Pericak cites the 5.0’s impressive EPA fuel-economy ratings—17 mpg city and 26 mpg highway—and the even more impressive ratings for the V-6: up to 31 mpg highway, a first for an engine rated at more than 300 horsepower, according to Ford.
We hope Pericak is right about the future of Mustang power because we can remember two episodes when Ford product planners looked into the future and declared the day of the V-8 pony car over.
The first of these tea-leaf readings led to the subcompact Mustang II, which made its debut with a lot of Pinto parts and a four-cylinder engine. It was definitely not one of Ford’s better ideas, and was duly interred after five years (1974–’78).
The second was the front-drive coupe that eventually became the Ford Probe (1989–’97), diverted from Mustanghood at the last minute by a deluge of anguished mail from club members and other friends of the pony.
Well, good luck to Mr. Pericak and his colleagues with their education program. One ride in a Mustang GT could well sway some of the fence sitters.
05-02-2010, 11:22 AM
#977
Damn, lighter curb weight, more power at the wheels, and a shorter final drive ratio, and yet the Mustang is a couple tenths slower in the 1/4? 
doesn't seem right, but whatever. The wider rear tires on the SS should make a difference, but I don't know about making that much of a difference. Live axle on the 5.0 should be easier to launch too...
I dunno, after driving the Evo X and 04-07 STis, I found those cars just aren't for me. Fun to drive, great performance and can sound good, and would be a great track/rallycross car (so fun, btw) I just need muscle. Just gotta have that V8 torque and sound underfoot.... the X is a great car, just a little too expensive.
doesn't seem right, but whatever. The wider rear tires on the SS should make a difference, but I don't know about making that much of a difference. Live axle on the 5.0 should be easier to launch too...I dunno, after driving the Evo X and 04-07 STis, I found those cars just aren't for me. Fun to drive, great performance and can sound good, and would be a great track/rallycross car (so fun, btw) I just need muscle. Just gotta have that V8 torque and sound underfoot.... the X is a great car, just a little too expensive.
05-02-2010, 07:42 PM
#978
Woops. I left out the part about the GT and the SS.
Those of you old enough to remember the carefree years of the big-inch V-8 will recall the original pony-car premise—lots of power packed into a relatively lightweight coupe. The revivalist Camaro seems to have lost touch with those roots. Developed by General Motors’ Australian subsidiary, Holden, on the same foundation that supported the late (and lamented) Pontiac G8 sedan, the latest Camaro is lighter than the Brobdingnagian Dodge Challenger, but at 3860 pounds, it’s more Percheron than pinto—280 pounds heavier than the Mustang. Maybe ponies are bigger in Australia?
Whatever, mass is never an asset in a sports coupe, and it’s one of two elements that work to relegate the Camaro to second place in this rematch with the Mustang GT. This SS is 20 pounds lighter than the car we tested last summer, with more break-in miles, and it grumbled through the 0-to-60-mph and 0-to-100-mph sprints a little quicker this time: 4.6 seconds and 10.5 seconds, respectively. The revitalized Mustang was the Camaro’s equal to 60 mph, but once the 6.2-liter pushrod V-8 (426 horses, 420 pound-feet of torque) got all that metal moving past 60 mph, it was a bit quicker than the Ford.
On the other hand, with a 280-pound weight advantage and a shorter (numerically higher) rear end (3.73:1 versus 3.45), the Mustang was quicker in our 30-to-50-mph and 50-to-70-mph top-gear passing exercises, as well as in the 5-to-60 rolling start.
On the road, particularly a mountain road, the Camaro’s mass is magnified by its dimensions. At 190.4 inches, it’s 2.3 inches longer than the Mustang, 1.6 inches wider (at 75.5 inches), with a roofline 1.6 inches lower (54.2), on a wheelbase (112.3) that’s 5.2 inches longer, and with a track that’s wider, front and rear. In its defense, this is a solid chassis that’s exemplary in terms of stability and inspires confidence as speeds build, confidence augmented by steering that’s nicely weighted, linear, and tactile throughout its range.
With its relatively forgiving suspension tuning, the Camaro is an easy car to drive fast—check the lane-change results—but it’s also a big car that drives big and feels even bigger, thanks in part to sightlines sliced thin by the styling. The faster you go, the more you want to see, but the Camaro’s views are restricted in almost every direction, particularly aft—“like the rear view from a nuclear submarine,” according to one crew member. That’s the price of the Camaro’s macho styling. It got the nod over the Mustang’s by-now familiar looks, and it turns heads, but claustrophobes need not apply.
Inside, the Camaro’s leather-clad bucket seats provide slightly better support than the Mustang’s, and it is easier to achieve an ideal driving position, owing to power adjustability and a steering column adjustable for both rake and reach.
The instrument panel won praise once again for its innovative design, although its lurid night lighting reminded one tester of a “pachinko parlor,” and the usefulness of the four gauges just ahead of the shifter—oil pressure, oil temp, transmission-oil temp, volt meter—is diminished by their position, particularly during daylight hours.
This Camaro has more extras than last summer’s test car, and it showed up with an as-tested price that was $3485 higher than the Mustang GT’s. Chevy offers a lot of car for the money here, figuratively and literally. But like Sarah Jessica Parker or a hard-tail Harley motorcycle, it’s an acquired taste.
The people handling the press presentations for the 2011 Mustangs insist the improvements went much further than mere powertrain upgrades. They point to selective chassis stiffening, suspension revisions, some interior detail changes, expansions to Ford’s Sync infotainment and communications system, and a nav-screen option (strangely absent in the Camaro inventory).
Okay, fine, but let’s get back to that big chunk of aluminum under the hood. We already mentioned the basics—DOHC, 32 valves, variable valve timing, and a bottom end designed to handle even more power in the future. We didn’t mention the deeper oil pan, to help maintain oil pressure in long corners, or the windage tray, to reduce power losses associated with excess oil dragging on the crankshaft.
Everything about the new 5.0 smacks of racing hardware and sounds like it, too, with a throaty baritone bark that’s more musical than the Camaro’s primal basso profundo. Louder, too—note the dBA readings in the chart. One crew member wondered whether that high noise level might get a little tedious on long drives—76 dBA at 70 mph is a couple brass bands more than 72 dBA, which isn’t exactly library quiet. To which the rest of the crew replied, “Nah.”
With its big edge in pounds per horsepower—8.7 versus 9.1—and shorter rear end, we expected the GT to smoke the Camaro in the sprints, but this turned out to be one of the surprises. The Mustang matched the Chevy to 60 at 4.6 seconds, limited slightly by an extra upshift, but it trailed by a half-second to 100 mph, and in the quarter-mile: 13.2 seconds at 109 mph versus 13 flat at 111.
Our test driver felt that the Mustang’s smaller rear footprints (255/40-19 versus 275/40-20—all four cars on Pirelli P Zeros) hampered its launch and may have held it back in the lane change, where it was slower than either Camaro. On the other hand, it pulled a respectable 0.94 g on the skidpad and also stopped in 153 feet from 70 mph, thanks in part to its newly optional Brembo brake package.
But those are just numbers. On mountain back roads and the Buttonwillow road circuit, the dynamic distinction between the Camaro and the Mustang was akin to the difference between a fighting bull and a star matador. The Mustang felt much lighter than the heavy Chevy, quicker in transient responses, and much quicker out of corners, live rear-axle suspension notwithstanding.
Demerits were tiny: an occasional steering column tremor during bumpy cornering, a hint of twitchiness in hard braking, and ride quality that could be tiresome on short-coupled slabs of pavement.
We found the Camaro’s edgier styling a little more entertaining—though it was refreshed for 2010, the Mustang has become perhaps a little too familiar—and the interior of our test car, a base GT with almost no options, looked cheap. The base GT buckets could do with more torso bolstering, and the omission of a telescoping steering column is a poor way to save money.
And, of course, there’s the fuel-economy thing. The EPA projects 17 mpg city and 26 highway for the GT. Fed a diet of switchbacks and sweepers and wide-open throttle, our GT didn’t do quite that well: 15 mpg over the entire test, one better than the Camaro SS’s average.
Nevertheless, the addition of a potent new V-8 and six-speed transmission to an already lively package makes this Mustang an almost unmitigated delight. For those attracted to the basic concept, resistance will be futile.
Whatever, mass is never an asset in a sports coupe, and it’s one of two elements that work to relegate the Camaro to second place in this rematch with the Mustang GT. This SS is 20 pounds lighter than the car we tested last summer, with more break-in miles, and it grumbled through the 0-to-60-mph and 0-to-100-mph sprints a little quicker this time: 4.6 seconds and 10.5 seconds, respectively. The revitalized Mustang was the Camaro’s equal to 60 mph, but once the 6.2-liter pushrod V-8 (426 horses, 420 pound-feet of torque) got all that metal moving past 60 mph, it was a bit quicker than the Ford.
On the other hand, with a 280-pound weight advantage and a shorter (numerically higher) rear end (3.73:1 versus 3.45), the Mustang was quicker in our 30-to-50-mph and 50-to-70-mph top-gear passing exercises, as well as in the 5-to-60 rolling start.
On the road, particularly a mountain road, the Camaro’s mass is magnified by its dimensions. At 190.4 inches, it’s 2.3 inches longer than the Mustang, 1.6 inches wider (at 75.5 inches), with a roofline 1.6 inches lower (54.2), on a wheelbase (112.3) that’s 5.2 inches longer, and with a track that’s wider, front and rear. In its defense, this is a solid chassis that’s exemplary in terms of stability and inspires confidence as speeds build, confidence augmented by steering that’s nicely weighted, linear, and tactile throughout its range.
With its relatively forgiving suspension tuning, the Camaro is an easy car to drive fast—check the lane-change results—but it’s also a big car that drives big and feels even bigger, thanks in part to sightlines sliced thin by the styling. The faster you go, the more you want to see, but the Camaro’s views are restricted in almost every direction, particularly aft—“like the rear view from a nuclear submarine,” according to one crew member. That’s the price of the Camaro’s macho styling. It got the nod over the Mustang’s by-now familiar looks, and it turns heads, but claustrophobes need not apply.
Inside, the Camaro’s leather-clad bucket seats provide slightly better support than the Mustang’s, and it is easier to achieve an ideal driving position, owing to power adjustability and a steering column adjustable for both rake and reach.
The instrument panel won praise once again for its innovative design, although its lurid night lighting reminded one tester of a “pachinko parlor,” and the usefulness of the four gauges just ahead of the shifter—oil pressure, oil temp, transmission-oil temp, volt meter—is diminished by their position, particularly during daylight hours.
This Camaro has more extras than last summer’s test car, and it showed up with an as-tested price that was $3485 higher than the Mustang GT’s. Chevy offers a lot of car for the money here, figuratively and literally. But like Sarah Jessica Parker or a hard-tail Harley motorcycle, it’s an acquired taste.
The people handling the press presentations for the 2011 Mustangs insist the improvements went much further than mere powertrain upgrades. They point to selective chassis stiffening, suspension revisions, some interior detail changes, expansions to Ford’s Sync infotainment and communications system, and a nav-screen option (strangely absent in the Camaro inventory).
Okay, fine, but let’s get back to that big chunk of aluminum under the hood. We already mentioned the basics—DOHC, 32 valves, variable valve timing, and a bottom end designed to handle even more power in the future. We didn’t mention the deeper oil pan, to help maintain oil pressure in long corners, or the windage tray, to reduce power losses associated with excess oil dragging on the crankshaft.
Everything about the new 5.0 smacks of racing hardware and sounds like it, too, with a throaty baritone bark that’s more musical than the Camaro’s primal basso profundo. Louder, too—note the dBA readings in the chart. One crew member wondered whether that high noise level might get a little tedious on long drives—76 dBA at 70 mph is a couple brass bands more than 72 dBA, which isn’t exactly library quiet. To which the rest of the crew replied, “Nah.”
With its big edge in pounds per horsepower—8.7 versus 9.1—and shorter rear end, we expected the GT to smoke the Camaro in the sprints, but this turned out to be one of the surprises. The Mustang matched the Chevy to 60 at 4.6 seconds, limited slightly by an extra upshift, but it trailed by a half-second to 100 mph, and in the quarter-mile: 13.2 seconds at 109 mph versus 13 flat at 111.
Our test driver felt that the Mustang’s smaller rear footprints (255/40-19 versus 275/40-20—all four cars on Pirelli P Zeros) hampered its launch and may have held it back in the lane change, where it was slower than either Camaro. On the other hand, it pulled a respectable 0.94 g on the skidpad and also stopped in 153 feet from 70 mph, thanks in part to its newly optional Brembo brake package.
But those are just numbers. On mountain back roads and the Buttonwillow road circuit, the dynamic distinction between the Camaro and the Mustang was akin to the difference between a fighting bull and a star matador. The Mustang felt much lighter than the heavy Chevy, quicker in transient responses, and much quicker out of corners, live rear-axle suspension notwithstanding.
Demerits were tiny: an occasional steering column tremor during bumpy cornering, a hint of twitchiness in hard braking, and ride quality that could be tiresome on short-coupled slabs of pavement.
We found the Camaro’s edgier styling a little more entertaining—though it was refreshed for 2010, the Mustang has become perhaps a little too familiar—and the interior of our test car, a base GT with almost no options, looked cheap. The base GT buckets could do with more torso bolstering, and the omission of a telescoping steering column is a poor way to save money.
And, of course, there’s the fuel-economy thing. The EPA projects 17 mpg city and 26 highway for the GT. Fed a diet of switchbacks and sweepers and wide-open throttle, our GT didn’t do quite that well: 15 mpg over the entire test, one better than the Camaro SS’s average.
Nevertheless, the addition of a potent new V-8 and six-speed transmission to an already lively package makes this Mustang an almost unmitigated delight. For those attracted to the basic concept, resistance will be futile.
06-17-2010, 09:53 AM
#979
Senior Moderator
RTR Package Announced...
Press release...
Mustang RTR, a new dealer-installed package for the 2011 Ford Mustang, delivers performance and appearance upgrades for spirited driving. The package was introduced by Vaughn Gittin Jr., driver of the Monster Energy/Falken Tire 2011 Mustang GT in the Formula Drift series. The RTR package comes complete with Ford Racing Falken FK-452 tires, unique 19-inch wheels, and RTR-exclusive interior details and striping scheme, and is available at select dealerships.
The introduction of Mustang RTR also plays off the success Gittin is enjoying on the Formula Drift circuit. Winner of the season-opening Long Beach event and runner-up in Atlanta, he has a significant points lead in this year’s Formula Drift championship
CONTEXT / BACKGROUND
Professional driver Vaughn Gittin Jr. knows what Mustangs can do – and he wanted to share that knowledge with Mustang enthusiasts who appreciate the car’s power and capability. Mustang RTR is Gittin Jr.’s vision for introducing a new generation of owners to Mustang, while catering to traditional Mustang enthusiasts. He helped develop the RTR package, which provides performance and appearance upgrades, to allow pony car lovers to make the most of their driving experience.
DETAILS
The 2011 Ford Mustang is known for its incredible performance and impressive looks, and now there’s a new package that takes those qualities one step further – Mustang RTR. The dealer-installed package from Vaughn Gittin Jr., driver of the Monster Energy/Falken Tire 2011 Mustang GT in Formula Drift, and Ford Racing Performance Parts, is aimed toward a new generation of Mustang owners.
The performance upgrade comes with Ford Racing calibration with a high-flow filter and high-performance Falken FK-452 tires, which offer precise handling from five linear ribs and three-dimensional rounded blocks. Stiffer, wide steel belts offer greater tread rigidity, superior grip and high-speed stability, and high-tension carcass and high turn-up construction increase handling response and high-speed stability.
Other performance upgrades include:
-Unique Mustang RTR 19x9.5-inch wheels
-Ford Racing mufflers
-Ford Racing handling pack (performance-tuned dampers and springs)
Mustang RTR commands attention with unique styling that is highlighted by a chin spoiler with splitter and supports, rocker splitters, a rear diffuser and aluminum rear spoiler. A distinctive Mustang RTR stripe scheme adds more distinction. The interior showcases RTR-exclusive floor mats, shifter knob and emblems.
The package was designed and manufactured in partnership with Michigan-based Classic Design Concepts, which has a reputation for quality and style. The Mustang RTR package is available at select dealerships for the 2011 Mustang GT. A Mustang V-6 package will be available in late 2010. For more information on the Mustang RTR package, visit www.mustangrtr.com.
The introduction of Mustang RTR also plays off the success Gittin is enjoying on the Formula Drift circuit. Winner of the season-opening Long Beach event and runner-up in Atlanta, he has a significant points lead in this year’s Formula Drift championship
CONTEXT / BACKGROUND
Professional driver Vaughn Gittin Jr. knows what Mustangs can do – and he wanted to share that knowledge with Mustang enthusiasts who appreciate the car’s power and capability. Mustang RTR is Gittin Jr.’s vision for introducing a new generation of owners to Mustang, while catering to traditional Mustang enthusiasts. He helped develop the RTR package, which provides performance and appearance upgrades, to allow pony car lovers to make the most of their driving experience.
DETAILS
The 2011 Ford Mustang is known for its incredible performance and impressive looks, and now there’s a new package that takes those qualities one step further – Mustang RTR. The dealer-installed package from Vaughn Gittin Jr., driver of the Monster Energy/Falken Tire 2011 Mustang GT in Formula Drift, and Ford Racing Performance Parts, is aimed toward a new generation of Mustang owners.
The performance upgrade comes with Ford Racing calibration with a high-flow filter and high-performance Falken FK-452 tires, which offer precise handling from five linear ribs and three-dimensional rounded blocks. Stiffer, wide steel belts offer greater tread rigidity, superior grip and high-speed stability, and high-tension carcass and high turn-up construction increase handling response and high-speed stability.
Other performance upgrades include:
-Unique Mustang RTR 19x9.5-inch wheels
-Ford Racing mufflers
-Ford Racing handling pack (performance-tuned dampers and springs)
Mustang RTR commands attention with unique styling that is highlighted by a chin spoiler with splitter and supports, rocker splitters, a rear diffuser and aluminum rear spoiler. A distinctive Mustang RTR stripe scheme adds more distinction. The interior showcases RTR-exclusive floor mats, shifter knob and emblems.
The package was designed and manufactured in partnership with Michigan-based Classic Design Concepts, which has a reputation for quality and style. The Mustang RTR package is available at select dealerships for the 2011 Mustang GT. A Mustang V-6 package will be available in late 2010. For more information on the Mustang RTR package, visit www.mustangrtr.com.
06-17-2010, 09:56 AM
#980
Senior Moderator
06-17-2010, 09:56 AM
#981
Senior Moderator
Looks really good...
08-14-2010, 04:45 PM
#986
この道は毛むくじゃらのマンコだらけ..
Ford Unveils 2012 Ford Boss 302 Mustang
HIGH-REVVING FORD 5.0-LITER V8 DELIVERS POWER, SPEED, FLEXIBILITY BEFITTING THE BOSS NAME
Quick Facts:
• 2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302 engine delivers 440 horsepower and 380 ft.-lbs. of torque without the aid of forced induction
• Purpose-built Boss engine is based on production 2011 Mustang GT 5.0-liter DOHC V8, heavily modified with unique, Boss-specific parts to withstand all-day thrashing
• Revised intake, CNC-machined heads, lightened valvetrain and strengthened reciprocating assembly result in a race-proven engine meeting production durability standards
Fact Sheet / Tech Specs /Engine Details
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...g_Boss_302.pdf
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...Boss_Specs.pdf
http://www.bossmustangperformance.co...ngine-details/
The all-new 5.0-liter dual-overhead camshaft (DOHC) V8 in the 2011 Mustang GT already is the most powerful naturally aspirated production V8 Ford has ever produced. To make it worthy of the Boss name, Ford engineers tweaked more than a few bits of the engine.
They reengineered an entire dynamometer cell to handle the engine’s projected 7,500 rpm redline; put the first engines into Boss 302R race cars and sent them straight onto the track; and they designed a torture test equivalent to running the Daytona 250 race flat-out more than 175 times – in a row.
Only when the 440-hp V8 passed these tests, ensuring maximum power output without sacrificing durability, reliability and drivability, was it worthy of being called a Boss.
Bulletproof and blower-free Planning began with a small group of engineers within the 5.0-liter V8 team. Starting with open minds and enlisting the help of two members of the original 1969 Boss 302 design team, the group began working its way toward the ultimate evolution of the new 5.0-liter: 440 horsepower and 380 lb.-ft. of torque, along with a broad, flat output curve all the way through its projected 7,500 rpm redline.
The Mustang team knew a supercharger would be the simplest way to extract significant power improvements from the new 5.0-liter V8, but they elected not to pursue forced induction for the 2012 Boss to stay true to the original Boss 302 engine.
“The core group of engineers on the Boss 302 engine understands and respect the heritage of the name and the history behind the original engine,” explains Mike Harrison, Ford V8 engine program manager. “The first Boss 302 was a specially built, free-breathing, high-revving small V8 that gave it certain desirable characteristics on a race course – and we capture that essence in the new engine.”
The team also realized the additional hardware meant more weight, the bane of any racing program and the opposite of what the Boss design team was attempting to achieve. Instead, the same technology that has made the new Mustang GT engine such a formidable force was applied to the Boss 302.
“In keeping with the spirit of the original, the new Boss 302 engine achieves its maximum power output at speeds at or above 7,500 rpm,” says Harrison. “Unlike the original engine, however, low-speed torque and driveability are uncompromised thanks to twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT) technology and computer-aided engineering design tools.”
Harrison and his team began exploring Boss 302 concepts starting with the engine’s ability to breathe – essential to the production of horsepower. Because credible track performance requires high power production between 5,000 rpm and 7,000 rpm, the team needed a new approach to intake manifold design.
Borrowing from the Ford Daytona Prototype engines, the resulting short-runners-in-the-box design virtually eliminates lag when the throttle is snapped open while producing peak power output at high rpm.
“The effect of the new intake design is dramatic,” says Harrison. “When I took the prototype car to Mustang Chief Engineer Dave Pericak, he took a short drive, tossed me the keys and said ‘Book it…it’s in the program.’ He knew what we were onto, and that’s really the point where the Boss 302 was born.”
To take advantage of the racing intake manifold, cylinder head airflow was fully optimized by CNC porting the entire intake and exhaust port and combustion chamber. The painstaking machining process takes 2.5 hours per head to complete.
To accompany the higher peak-power engine speed, the team had to engineer a lightweight, high-speed valvetrain and bulletproof reciprocating assembly that would not only hold together for 150,000-plus miles but also produce power at peak rpm.
“What most people don’t realize is that engine stresses increase exponentially as engine speeds rise,” explains Harrison. “So moving up from GT’s 7,000 rpm redline required significant re-engineering of many different parts. Sacrificing reliability and usability over the GT engine was never an option.”
Some of the Boss-specific parts contributing to the Boss 302 V8’s output and durability include:
* Revised composite intake system with shorter runners, inspired by Daytona Prototype racing engines, for high-rpm breathing
* Forged aluminum pistons and upgraded sinter-forged connecting rods for improved strength, needed for the higher combustion pressures and engine speeds
* New high-strength aluminum-alloy cylinder heads with fully CNC-machined ports and chambers for exceptional high-rpm airflow without sacrificing low-speed torque
* Lightened valvetrain components to provide excellent dynamic performance up to speeds well above the engine redline
* Sodium-filled exhaust valves for improved heat dissipation
* Race-specification crankshaft main and rod bearings for higher load capability and improved high-speed durability
* 5W50 full-synthetic oil with engine oil cooler for improved oil pressure and longer-lasting lubrication during extreme racing conditions
* Revised oil pan baffling for improved oil control under racing conditions and during cornering loads greater than 1.0 g
Close connection with race teams
Contrary to normal engine development protocol, the first batch of durability test engines weren’t installed in an engine dyno. Instead, thanks to a request from Ford Racing, they went straight to the track.
“Ford Racing had challenged the Boss engine team to give them the first available Boss 302 engines,” explains Harrison. “They came to us in August 2009 and told us they needed engines as soon as possible to build a limited number of Ford Racing Boss 302R cars for the January Daytona race. They got the engines 12 weeks later and the team got five Boss 302R cars prepped for the January race. This gave us a fantastic opportunity to be able to get full-on race experience with the engine so early in the program.”
The Boss engines have run reliably all season without a single mechanical failure. Boss 302R cars have also racked up the most laps led so far this season in Grand-Am racing.
Using race telemetry, the Boss team has been able to gather on-track data to help optimize engine calibrations, oil pan designs and cooling. In order to engage in virtual racing whenever they needed, the team used the telemetry data to re-create a hot lap at Daytona on the dyno back in Dearborn, allowing further fine-tuning.
“Working with Ford Racing has been invaluable,” said Harrison. “They were a wealth of information for setting up torque and power curves for road racing and for identifying areas of concern during track runs that we wouldn’t have considered if we were just building a hot street engine. Every Boss 302 owner will benefit from their contributions to the program.”
Production engine durability testing Despite its racing heritage – and the rigors of track-day testing – the Boss 302 V8 is still a production Ford engine, built alongside the 5.0-liter GT engine at Essex Engine Plant in Ontario, Canada. That means it has to meet or exceed all the standard durability testing every Ford engine is required to complete.
The high-winding engine presented a challenge: The engine had no trouble staying together at its redline, but the Ford durability dynamometers weren’t designed to operate at the speeds the Boss engine was capable of.
“Ford had no engine test cells built to run at that kind of sustained speed,” said Harrison. “Ford Racing had one, but it wasn’t instrumented to do production durability testing. So we had to re-engineer the dyno cell with new balancers and jackshafts so the dyno wouldn’t fly apart running at redline hour after hour.”
Once an adequate test stand was configured, the Boss engine was run at its full rated output for tens of millions of cycles, eventually outperforming its specifications at every stage of testing. Engineers calculated that the test regimen was equivalent to running the Daytona 250 race flat-out more than 175 times – in a row.
Team members also devised an additional durability test specific to the Boss 302 engine – one that reflects the unique demands of Boss drivers. The engine was subjected to a regimen simulating 1,500 quarter-mile races typical of events at drag strips across the country.
“Even though the production Boss engine is designed to be very close to a full race engine, it had to achieve the same vehicle durability signoff any other production engine requires,” says Harrison. “Then it went on to get the track durability test signoff too. It’s really an engineering accomplishment that a Boss owner can thrash his car on the track and still expect the same outstanding reliability that the owner of a regular Mustang GT will enjoy.”
2012 Boss 302 Laguna Seca Read about the race inspired 2012 Boss 302.
Source:
http://www.bossmustangperformance.co...82#entry261582
Quick Facts:
• 2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302 engine delivers 440 horsepower and 380 ft.-lbs. of torque without the aid of forced induction
• Purpose-built Boss engine is based on production 2011 Mustang GT 5.0-liter DOHC V8, heavily modified with unique, Boss-specific parts to withstand all-day thrashing
• Revised intake, CNC-machined heads, lightened valvetrain and strengthened reciprocating assembly result in a race-proven engine meeting production durability standards
Fact Sheet / Tech Specs /Engine Details
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...g_Boss_302.pdf
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...Boss_Specs.pdf
http://www.bossmustangperformance.co...ngine-details/
The all-new 5.0-liter dual-overhead camshaft (DOHC) V8 in the 2011 Mustang GT already is the most powerful naturally aspirated production V8 Ford has ever produced. To make it worthy of the Boss name, Ford engineers tweaked more than a few bits of the engine.
They reengineered an entire dynamometer cell to handle the engine’s projected 7,500 rpm redline; put the first engines into Boss 302R race cars and sent them straight onto the track; and they designed a torture test equivalent to running the Daytona 250 race flat-out more than 175 times – in a row.
Only when the 440-hp V8 passed these tests, ensuring maximum power output without sacrificing durability, reliability and drivability, was it worthy of being called a Boss.
Bulletproof and blower-free Planning began with a small group of engineers within the 5.0-liter V8 team. Starting with open minds and enlisting the help of two members of the original 1969 Boss 302 design team, the group began working its way toward the ultimate evolution of the new 5.0-liter: 440 horsepower and 380 lb.-ft. of torque, along with a broad, flat output curve all the way through its projected 7,500 rpm redline.
The Mustang team knew a supercharger would be the simplest way to extract significant power improvements from the new 5.0-liter V8, but they elected not to pursue forced induction for the 2012 Boss to stay true to the original Boss 302 engine.
“The core group of engineers on the Boss 302 engine understands and respect the heritage of the name and the history behind the original engine,” explains Mike Harrison, Ford V8 engine program manager. “The first Boss 302 was a specially built, free-breathing, high-revving small V8 that gave it certain desirable characteristics on a race course – and we capture that essence in the new engine.”
The team also realized the additional hardware meant more weight, the bane of any racing program and the opposite of what the Boss design team was attempting to achieve. Instead, the same technology that has made the new Mustang GT engine such a formidable force was applied to the Boss 302.
“In keeping with the spirit of the original, the new Boss 302 engine achieves its maximum power output at speeds at or above 7,500 rpm,” says Harrison. “Unlike the original engine, however, low-speed torque and driveability are uncompromised thanks to twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT) technology and computer-aided engineering design tools.”
Harrison and his team began exploring Boss 302 concepts starting with the engine’s ability to breathe – essential to the production of horsepower. Because credible track performance requires high power production between 5,000 rpm and 7,000 rpm, the team needed a new approach to intake manifold design.
Borrowing from the Ford Daytona Prototype engines, the resulting short-runners-in-the-box design virtually eliminates lag when the throttle is snapped open while producing peak power output at high rpm.
“The effect of the new intake design is dramatic,” says Harrison. “When I took the prototype car to Mustang Chief Engineer Dave Pericak, he took a short drive, tossed me the keys and said ‘Book it…it’s in the program.’ He knew what we were onto, and that’s really the point where the Boss 302 was born.”
To take advantage of the racing intake manifold, cylinder head airflow was fully optimized by CNC porting the entire intake and exhaust port and combustion chamber. The painstaking machining process takes 2.5 hours per head to complete.
To accompany the higher peak-power engine speed, the team had to engineer a lightweight, high-speed valvetrain and bulletproof reciprocating assembly that would not only hold together for 150,000-plus miles but also produce power at peak rpm.
“What most people don’t realize is that engine stresses increase exponentially as engine speeds rise,” explains Harrison. “So moving up from GT’s 7,000 rpm redline required significant re-engineering of many different parts. Sacrificing reliability and usability over the GT engine was never an option.”
Some of the Boss-specific parts contributing to the Boss 302 V8’s output and durability include:
* Revised composite intake system with shorter runners, inspired by Daytona Prototype racing engines, for high-rpm breathing
* Forged aluminum pistons and upgraded sinter-forged connecting rods for improved strength, needed for the higher combustion pressures and engine speeds
* New high-strength aluminum-alloy cylinder heads with fully CNC-machined ports and chambers for exceptional high-rpm airflow without sacrificing low-speed torque
* Lightened valvetrain components to provide excellent dynamic performance up to speeds well above the engine redline
* Sodium-filled exhaust valves for improved heat dissipation
* Race-specification crankshaft main and rod bearings for higher load capability and improved high-speed durability
* 5W50 full-synthetic oil with engine oil cooler for improved oil pressure and longer-lasting lubrication during extreme racing conditions
* Revised oil pan baffling for improved oil control under racing conditions and during cornering loads greater than 1.0 g
Close connection with race teams
Contrary to normal engine development protocol, the first batch of durability test engines weren’t installed in an engine dyno. Instead, thanks to a request from Ford Racing, they went straight to the track.
“Ford Racing had challenged the Boss engine team to give them the first available Boss 302 engines,” explains Harrison. “They came to us in August 2009 and told us they needed engines as soon as possible to build a limited number of Ford Racing Boss 302R cars for the January Daytona race. They got the engines 12 weeks later and the team got five Boss 302R cars prepped for the January race. This gave us a fantastic opportunity to be able to get full-on race experience with the engine so early in the program.”
The Boss engines have run reliably all season without a single mechanical failure. Boss 302R cars have also racked up the most laps led so far this season in Grand-Am racing.
Using race telemetry, the Boss team has been able to gather on-track data to help optimize engine calibrations, oil pan designs and cooling. In order to engage in virtual racing whenever they needed, the team used the telemetry data to re-create a hot lap at Daytona on the dyno back in Dearborn, allowing further fine-tuning.
“Working with Ford Racing has been invaluable,” said Harrison. “They were a wealth of information for setting up torque and power curves for road racing and for identifying areas of concern during track runs that we wouldn’t have considered if we were just building a hot street engine. Every Boss 302 owner will benefit from their contributions to the program.”
Production engine durability testing Despite its racing heritage – and the rigors of track-day testing – the Boss 302 V8 is still a production Ford engine, built alongside the 5.0-liter GT engine at Essex Engine Plant in Ontario, Canada. That means it has to meet or exceed all the standard durability testing every Ford engine is required to complete.
The high-winding engine presented a challenge: The engine had no trouble staying together at its redline, but the Ford durability dynamometers weren’t designed to operate at the speeds the Boss engine was capable of.
“Ford had no engine test cells built to run at that kind of sustained speed,” said Harrison. “Ford Racing had one, but it wasn’t instrumented to do production durability testing. So we had to re-engineer the dyno cell with new balancers and jackshafts so the dyno wouldn’t fly apart running at redline hour after hour.”
Once an adequate test stand was configured, the Boss engine was run at its full rated output for tens of millions of cycles, eventually outperforming its specifications at every stage of testing. Engineers calculated that the test regimen was equivalent to running the Daytona 250 race flat-out more than 175 times – in a row.
Team members also devised an additional durability test specific to the Boss 302 engine – one that reflects the unique demands of Boss drivers. The engine was subjected to a regimen simulating 1,500 quarter-mile races typical of events at drag strips across the country.
“Even though the production Boss engine is designed to be very close to a full race engine, it had to achieve the same vehicle durability signoff any other production engine requires,” says Harrison. “Then it went on to get the track durability test signoff too. It’s really an engineering accomplishment that a Boss owner can thrash his car on the track and still expect the same outstanding reliability that the owner of a regular Mustang GT will enjoy.”
2012 Boss 302 Laguna Seca Read about the race inspired 2012 Boss 302.
Source:
http://www.bossmustangperformance.co...82#entry261582
Last edited by onebadna1nsx; 08-14-2010 at 04:48 PM.
08-14-2010, 10:47 PM
#987
My first Avatar....
Wow what an engine! Can't wait to see what comes when Ford goes to FI.
Wonder what the pricing will be....
Wonder what the pricing will be....
08-18-2010, 10:41 AM
#990
Changin bulbs since '73
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chi-town burbs
Age: 51
Posts: 8,111
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
4 Posts
i'll take mine w/o the decals...even though they are alright looking. That think is badass.
Now, make a lincoln mark IX w/ and irs and luxury amenities but keep it light and now your talkin.....
Now, make a lincoln mark IX w/ and irs and luxury amenities but keep it light and now your talkin.....
08-18-2010, 10:54 AM
#991
The sizzle in the Steak
the new Boss 302 engine achieves its maximum power output at speeds at or above 7,500 rpm
08-18-2010, 01:44 PM
#992
この道は毛むくじゃらのマンコだらけ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZ1sjNmdH0
302 is coming in AUGUST!!!!?!?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjHhxARzYvY
302 is coming in AUGUST!!!!?!?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjHhxARzYvY
I seriously want one...
08-18-2010, 06:09 PM
#997
Senior Moderator
08-20-2010, 02:36 AM
#999
Daddy like.
08-20-2010, 08:53 AM
#1000
99 TL, 06 E350
^ At least Ford is getting private teams to use the car and relay back info on how to improve it. Isn't that how the first muscle cars were done with Penske and made them so high sought after?