Apparently it sill runs on regular, which is friggin nuts. I mean people always talk about an engine making 100+hp per liter, but who cares if you can get as good gas mileage on regular gas, meaning you don't have to worry as much about getting a bad tank of 91+ which seems to happen frequently.
Crazy engine, I mean these write ups always make every engine sound like a jewel, but I think ford did this one right. People are gonna knock that the pistons arent forged like the s2000's, but the STI uses the kind of pistons as well. Forged crank, oil squirters, jeebus.
And thank god Ford finally decided to clean up the engine bay of their V8s, I mean that was the biggest thing for me, you got a badass v8 under the hood so you go to pop open the hood to show it off and people are just befuddled, just a black tangled mess of stuff.
Ugh, filthy stuff, if the car were liek 300-400lbs lighter with an IRS, itd be stuff of dreams.
I wonder how much these cars are gonna cost now though.

 

I picked up on the regular grade gas a few days ago. It gives it 12 hp less. At 400hp, who cares?!?!

If it comes in at 28k it would be VERY hard to pass up.

 

Pretty much all US V8 engines use counterweighted cranks. That's how it's done here. I can't think of a single cross-plane V8 that doesn't use counterweights, actually.

Powdered metal rods are not "forged." They are sintered. Ford can call it what they want, it's powdered metal heated under extreme pressure until it bonds into a cohesive whole. It's cheaper than a true forged piece of metal and cheaper to produce, while tolerating the stresses of high power and high rpm. Nevertheless, anyone who plans to push the motor for racing will upgrade to true forged rods.

Ford has used hypereutectic pistons on their engines for a long time now, it's not exactly a new technology. Again, it's something that is cost effective and more than up to the task of tolerating the stresses involved, but anyone interested in making much more power than stock would upgrade to forged pistons.

The current engines have the coolant crossover in the intake. Integrating it into the block casting eliminates a potential failure point.

The four bolt main bearings are a standard feature on V8 engines for the last two decades. Before that they were reserved for high output mills, but by any standard, these days all V8 engines are high output.

Essentially it's an all new block, intake, and heads improving on existing designs, but the rotating gear are made of the same stuff as the current car. The dimensions are merely different.

Basically the press release filled in a lot of details on the new motor, but not very many of them are really "new" ideas. Which is fine. The engine delivers the goods. And has the engineering and production knowledge behind it to ensure a solid reliable design.

 

Honestly, the engine bay of a Mustang GT isn't bad to work on at all. There's no plastic beauty cover to get in the way, just about everything is easy to access, and simple maintenance jobs like swapping alternators has never been that hard to do.

I wouldn't describe it as a "black tangled mess" under any circumstances.

But cleaner is better, I'll agree.

You'd never be able to shave off a few hundred pounds *and* add an IRS. Independent suspension adds a lot of total weight over a solid axle. The advantage is in the reduction of unsprung weight, not in total weight overall. And not all IRS designs are created equal. I think we all would prefer a superior suspension of any design over losing camber to body roll as in a poorly designed IRS.

I'd guess the base price of a Mustang GT goes up a few grand. Which is fine given the bump in power.

 

Ford 5.0 - 430lbs
M3 S65 - 445lbs
GM LS3 - 415lbs

Very impressive. This engine weighs 15lbs less than the engine from the M3, a car costing twice as much.

http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/7357

 

True but that car that costs twice as much greets 60mph in 4.1seconds and the quarter in 12.5sec. The stang GT will be lucky to see 4.5. Just look at the accel times of the current 500+ version. Lets not forget the M will be down on torque by 100lb ft.

 

Of course with any listing of engine weights it's important to make sure we are comparing apples to apples. For instance, somewhere on GM's website they had listed the LS1's weight at something like 455lbs or 485lb (manual). Presumably that was because the auto version of the engine comes with a flex plate vs a heavier flywheel. Now we have two different, correct weights for the exact same motor based on what we connect to the crank.

I suspect that these low weights are based on stripped engines with no alternators, headers etc. However, I could be wrong. Also, we don't know that the three weights above are all for the same level of accessories. If for example, GM included the weight of their headers that would put them at a disadvantage as compared to the others. The BMW headers are probably heavier than the others but, IIRC they also extend back to the end of the motor. The GM headers stop at the middle of the motor. That means, if we include headers in these weights, the BMW motor is at a disadvantage simply because their headers are longer (thus more of the total exhaust system weight is counted towards "engine weight". Additionally, we don't know if the Ford engine is as compact as the BMW or GM motors.

Given that all the weights are similar we can assume that GM, BMW and Ford all have decided there are different ways to skin the 400hp cat. Personally, I rather like that they all came up with somewhat different answers.

 

The GT500 has posted times in the low 12s, most being in the mid 12s. Considering it weighs 300lbs more than the M3, I'd say it's perfectly in line for the pig that it is. Plus the M3 is equipped with sitcky PS2s while the GT500 isn't. Torque deficiency isn't really an issue with proper gearing and high RPM.

The 2011 GT will weigh roughly the same as the M3 while producing the same power. With proper tires, it'll be a drivers race.

Anyway, point still stands. The engine is fantastic when compared to cars such as the M3 which surely had a much larger engine design budget and produced a similar, arguably less impressive, result.

 

I got the LS3 weight from the GMPP catalog which doesn't include a flexplate or flywhel. They also list the LS1 (w/o ECU and wireharness) at 409lbs. Note: Weights include crates and all packaging material. Approximate crate weight is 30 lbs.

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/_res/pdf...gineQRC2008.pdf

I got the BMW M3 weight from wiki which lists BMW as the source although the link doesn't work. There are many technical articles that cite the same number. I don't know what standard BMW goes by, but apparently there is a SAE/DIn std for engine weights.

Granted, they are not the same source and standard of measurement, but it's as close to apples vs apples as I can get on the internet.

 

I certainly agree that it's to get a good side by side comparison when we are hunting internet weights. We can conclude that the three motors are close in weight. It's harder to say how much lighter one is than another. Still, it's impressive that Ford's new Mustang motor weights about the same and has the same power as the "high tech" BMW mill.

Your link actually does a nice job of illustrating part of what I'm talking about. Look at the difference between "base", "deluxe" and "turn key" motors. The weight of any one of those configurations could be reasonably reported as "engine weight". Also note that the LS7's listed weight is higher than that of the LS1. I believe the LS7 crate motor comes with headers. I suspect the LS1 on that list does not.