2021 Mustang on CD6

[SoonerLS]

We must at least be in the ballpark, as Dean hasn't pulled out the penguins yet.

[tbone]

His profile says 2013. Maybe he forgot to update it.

Yes, the 2017, I forgot to update it.

[Twin Turbo]

I have not been following this thread but how far back was the last mention of a Mustang?

 

I keep checking in for more '21/'22MY Mustang news........but at least the off-topic chat is interesting :D

[Stray Kat]

I'll tell you the confusion and misdirection in Ford's engine plans and lineups have sure let Gm create the term "legendary" around their LS line much like they did with the sbc.

 

You see I look at certain key vehicle lines like Mustang, F150, Camaro, Challeger etc on two levels. First the complete product itself, and second the heart of the vehicle being the engine and drive line.

 

The engine is a product. I think Ford loses sight of that sometimes. Engines believe it or not have their adherents.

 

I like what Ford has done with the Ecoboost line but their V8 engines are great in many ways but seem to be in a state of confusing disarray.

 

Meanwhile their cross town rivals take advantage of commonality, familiarity and economies of scale. Just like they have done since 1955.

[jpd80]

and yet if the Coyote's bore spacing was increased to 4.4" or 4.5" all would be forgiven...

while I'm OK with it as is, for some, it's seems to be a case of so near yet so far for some...

 

In my perfect world

 

4.6 V8 3V => 5.0 V8 Coyote

5.4 V8 3V => 5.8 V8 Coyote...allowing the 6.2 V8 to be made as a 7.3 V8 for bigger trucks.

Edited March 4, 2018 by jpd80

[SoonerLS]

I like what Ford has done with the Ecoboost line but their V8 engines are great in many ways but seem to be in a state of confusing disarray.

You're gonna have to explain that one, 'cause I'm not following you at all, slick.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I agree with him. Just as soon as Ford had finally "settled" on their V8 strategy (small block Windsor and big block 385) in the early 90s, out came the mod motors. While I don't blame them for wanting something exclusive for Lincoln, it really never should have ended up in trucks. Also while the 4.6/5.4 have good potential if you load them up with aftermarket parts, Ford never really bothered overcoming the tiny bores in stock form. It took until the coyote before they finally got it right.

 

Except right when they finally got the V8 right, out come the ecoboosts. While people will debate forever about which is better in an f150, the fact of the matter is it stole market share from the coyote in F150. This means fewer "core" engines available for performance builds and higher cost of building one.

 

Even as good as the coyote is, it's pretty maxed out on displacement, so out came the 6.2L. Finally, an engine that fixed everything that was wrong with the basic modular platform. Except Ford quickly relegated it to base engine in the f250 and pretends it doesn't exist at the Ford Racing Performance Parts division.

 

Now there's also the V10. Ford spends all that money to mass produce an overhead cam, even-fire V10. This is exotic stuff back in 1999 and even still today for mass market brands. But just like the 6.2L, it gets abandoned and ignored in big trucks only. I mean, would it have killed Ford to simply offer cam blanks and maybe a performance intake manifold for it? That's all it needed to have real potential; the rest can be standard 4.6/5.4 parts. Neither would have cost much of anything for Ford to do.

 

So yeah, I agree. Ford has taken a very haphazard approach to their large displacement engines over the last 25 years. So close to dominance so many times but they always find a way to shoot themselves in the foot and start over.

 

And we all complain about Chevy and their LS engine's dominance of motor sports. It ain't because there's anything magic about it; it's just that GM committed to it and that in turn drove down cost and increased availability of parts to the point that nothing else can compete dollar for dollar.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

In other words there are no cheap Ford V8 engines in junkyards.

 

Why Ford is supposed to give a shit about people buying used engines and used vehicles is beyond me.

[Stray Kat]

No akirby, and I mean this with all due respect, I'm not gonna let you get away with that argument again.

 

That is the position you took when I started a thread in Ford Performance about the parts program.

 

Well I'm not talking about the aftermarket in this one. I'm talking about continuity through an engine line.

 

Look before the Coyote came out there was a rumor that the bore spacing from the Modular line was going to get "fixed".

 

Do we remember why the Modular Fords have such a tight bore spacing? Yeah that's right so they could shoehorn it into the FWD Lincoln Continental in '91, '92.

 

Can you imagine compromising an entire engine line to accommodate such an orphan car?

 

There are not one but two knocks against this whole series of Modular and now Coyote engines. We always say they are displacement limited which is true but their external physical size immense.

 

This is a result of having to use a relatively long stroke and accompanying long connecting rod, thus a very tall deck to make the geometry work out.

 

If Ford would have used more foresight at the inception of the Modular line or at least when they went to the Coyote they would not have had to creat the 6.2 Hurricane engine thus saving millions.

 

Now having said that Ford has done a brilliant job with the Coyote and pretty well with the 6.2. It's just they did it the hard way in my opinion.

 

Finally I don't know why you bring up junkyard statements. Maybe that's because a junkyard is where you find most LS motors. But being as you brought it up, YES Ford should be concerned about the long term serviceability of their vehicles. You think they shouldn't care?

 

Ford or any other manufacturer should want their vehicles to have a rewarding affect on their owners, not unnecessary frustration.

[akirby]

But maybe those same decisions that you say cost them millions actually saved them millions in other ways. Business decisions are rarely straightforward. I’m not debating whether they could have made better design decisions - all I’m saying is that all that Ford really cares about (and all they should care about) is being able to put the best motors into their new vehicles and sell them at a profit.

 

Whether they can be found used and cheap and how easy or hard they are to put into used vehicles does absolutely nothing for Ford’s bottom line. Ford chose to develop and sell Focus RS and Raptor and the Ford GT. GM chose to make aftermarket engines and parts instead.

[SoonerLS]

Finally I don't know why you bring up junkyard statements. Maybe that's because a junkyard is where you find most LS motors. But being as you brought it up, YES Ford should be concerned about the long term serviceability of their vehicles. You think they shouldn't care?

You need to read the post to which he was responding. akirby didn't bring up junkyard engines, Sevensecondsuv did.

Edited March 5, 2018 by SoonerLS

[SoonerLS]

Even as good as the coyote is, it's pretty maxed out on displacement, so out came the 6.2L. Finally, an engine that fixed everything that was wrong with the basic modular platform. Except Ford quickly relegated it to base engine in the f250 and pretends it doesn't exist at the Ford Racing Performance Parts division.

There's one problem with this theory--the Coyote and 6.2 hit the streets in the same year (2010 Mustang and 2010 Raptor, respectively). And if we take theoldwizard at face value, the Hurricane (now Boss) line was in development before the Coyote.

 

ETA: As OHV 16 points out below, the Coyote didn't hit the streets 'til 2011 (F-150 and Mustang GT).

Edited March 5, 2018 by SoonerLS

[akirby]

You need to read the post to which he was responding. akirby didn't bring up junkyard engines, Sevensecondsuv did.

Specifically the part about not having enough “core” engines for aftermarket rebuilds.

[Stray Kat]

Guys, let me put it another way. Say you have a fleet of F150- F450 work trucks. (I'm responsible for just such a fleet) Don't you think it would be more attractive for fleet owners to have the most amount of commonality and familiarity as possible?

 

We're not talking solely about performance vehicles here.

 

Does that make sense?

[akirby]

To a degree, sure - if you’re doing your own repairs.

[jpd80]

There was a battle within Ford as to whether to do an enlarged high deck Mod on what became Coyote

or to go with 5.8/6.2 Hurricane - resurrected as 6.2 Boss. And as we know the boss won out......

 

Just my opinion but 5.0 & 5.8 Coyote would have been a blast and left Ford with Boss at a +7.0 liter V8 from get go

 

....job done.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Specifically the part about not having enough core engines for aftermarket rebuilds.

Yes, Ford should care about stocking junkyards with desirable engines. Think about how many new GM cars and trucks are sold because guys identify with GM. This brand loyalty was built on decades of faithful support of the motor sports industry by GM in the way of filling junkyards with scores of common engines and then developing tons of affordable performance parts for these engines.

 

Seriously, GM sales wouldn't be near what they are without the brand loyalty they've built over generations.

 

It's not just about the current product sometimes!!!

[OHV 16V]

Oops... double post. (Sorry kids)

Edited March 5, 2018 by OHV 16V

[OHV 16V]

There's one problem with this theory--the Coyote and 6.2 hit the streets in the same year (2010 Mustang and 2010 Raptor, respectively). And if we take theoldwizard at face value, the Hurricane (now Boss) line was in development before the Coyote.

Doesnt change your point really, but thats incorrect. 2010 Mustang was the first year of the refreshed body style but had the carryover 4.6-liter 3V. 2011 saw the arrival of the 5.0-liter. F-150 Raptor had the 6.2 for 2010.

Edited March 5, 2018 by OHV 16V

[SoonerLS]

Doesnt change your point really, but thats incorrect. 2010 Mustang was the first year of the refreshed body style but had the carryover 4.6-liter 3V. 2011 saw the arrival of the 5.0-liter. F-150 Raptor had the 6.2 for 2010.

Oops, you're right, my mistake. Thanks!

[jpd80]

Easy to get confused, the big engine change was in Calander Year 2010 but Year model 2011

Edited March 5, 2018 by jpd80

[SoonerLS]

Easy to get confused, the big engine change was in Calander Year 2010 but Year model 2011

I knew the F-150 got the new engines (except for the Raptor's 6.2) in 2011, but for some reason I got it in my head that Mustang got them a year earlier. Just a brain fart on my part.

Edited March 5, 2018 by SoonerLS

[jpd80]

Just earlier in the year, we knew what you meant

Edited March 5, 2018 by jpd80

[Twin Turbo]

No specifics, but I can't recall the last time Ford publicly discussed their individual platforms/architectures!

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2018/03/15/ford-readies-north-americas-freshest-lineup-by-2020.html

 

Ford’s five flexible vehicle architectures – body-on-frame, front-wheel-drive unibody, rear-wheel-drive unibody, commercial van unibody and BEV – are paired with module “families” that address the power pack, electrical pack and vehicle configurations. Seventy percent of each vehicle’s engineering will be driven from this new architecture approach, with 30 percent of content – including grilles, hoods, doors and more – customized for each vehicle.

[jpd80]

No specifics, but I can't recall the last time Ford publicly discussed their individual platforms/architectures!

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2018/03/15/ford-readies-north-americas-freshest-lineup-by-2020.html

 

Ford’s five flexible vehicle architectures – body-on-frame, front-wheel-drive unibody, rear-wheel-drive unibody, commercial van unibody and BEV – are paired with module “families” that address the power pack, electrical pack and vehicle configurations. Seventy percent of each vehicle’s engineering will be driven from this new architecture approach, with 30 percent of content – including grilles, hoods, doors and more – customized for each vehicle.

 

Just on those flexible architectures,

the BOF grouping is now interesting and obviously speaks to next Generation T6 (mid sized truck and SUVs)

this is a sign that future Ranger, Bronco and Everest take on more power train and electrical modules from F Series

Edited March 16, 2018 by jpd80