By on August 31, 2010

What you see above is the cutaway of the Ford 5.0L mill, taken from the 2010 New York Auto Show. Formerly known as the Coyote V8, the 5.0-packed 2011 Mustang GT hit the showroom floors, winning rave reviews with every journalist lucky enough to get their hands on one. While blogging for TTAC at the New York Auto Show, I hit up the Five-Oh engine displays at the Ford booth.  It was a thoroughly technical and suitably beautiful exhibit.  Only problem was, it gave away a secret that nobody should know.  Camera in hand, I did the deed: a picture tells a thousand words, but this TTAC Editorial still needs about 800 words to go with.

Take a gander at the 5.0’s combustion chamber, highlighted in red. It’s a strange little bump. And nothing more, right? Sure, unless you read between the (casting) lines: its proof that the 5.0 Mustang shall receive a significant improvement in the near future. Yes, Dearborn’s got a trick up its sleeve: direct injection.

I spoke with one of the well-versed product specialists, a booth babe in true TTAC style, aside from the fact that he was most certainly not a “she.” No, I never asked if he came with the car, but I did challenge him to explain the 5.0’s tempting cylinder head design. And while he never said anything quotable, the look on his face was picture perfect: if I told you, I’d have to kill you.

Typical auto show banter between savvy product specialists and bored car hacks?  Perhaps. But the fact remains, nobody should buy a Mustang GT until that casting bump turns into a hole for a fuel injector. But what’s the big deal?

Direct fuel injection, as opposed to (intake) port fuel injection, is the latest technology in the advancement of the internal combustion engine.  It’s one of many advancements that proves the piston engine gets better with age, and beats the dubious “Moore’s Law” argument of Tesla fans. And the proof is already on the street: owners of late model diesels, EcoBoost Fords several GM products like the Cadillac CTS already know the drill: direct injection gives more power, more economy and lower emissions with zero changes to the driving experience. It is the textbook definition of having your cake and eating it too.

Geek Alert!  Let’s get detailed: a port fuel injection vehicle has the fuel injector placed in the intake manifold, usually at the end of the runner, behind the intake valve. Direct Injection places the injector in the red circle from the picture above: so there’s no more mixing of air and fuel in the intake.  The benefit is simple:  injecting the fuel at a very high pressure (2000psi, compared to 10-60 psi) directly into the combustion chamber produces a cooling charge. Much to the joy of mechanical engineers everywhere, “cold” fuel gets shot into a hot combustion chamber: Thermodynamics wins.  This helps reduce engine knock, so higher ignition timing and/or compression ratios can be implemented. Just like sane doses of Nitrous Oxide on a motor, the extra cooling charge afforded by Direct Injection is a huge win by itself.

The doubters might mention the Jaguar XF makes “only” 385 horses with its direct injected 5.0L mill, which is less than the current Mustang’s 412 ponies. But both 5.0s come from different engine families.  And when you consider the Jag’s power bump from port to direct injection, the improvement is real.

Even if my theory is correct, there’s no guarantee that the direct injected Mustang shall be any more powerful than the current model.  Ford can pull a fast one: de-tuning the direct injected 5.0 for a multitude of reasons. Thanks to drive-by-wire and traction control nannies, the direct injected 5.0 can easily give 80% of a day’s work and nobody will notice.  Considering damn near every vehicle today has power robbing torque management built into its DNA, why would Ford up the Mustang to its full potential?

Go back to 1986: the year that port fuel injection (@200hp/285tq) took the 5.0’s game to refined places the Holley four-barrel (@210hp/270tq) of 1985 couldn’t even imagine.  Torque went up, but the 1986 Mustang lost 5% in peak horsepower. Cue the modestly-redesigned 1987 Mustang: a quickie head swap to ye olde F-150 parts turned the Mustang’s EFI 5.0 (@225hp/300tq) into the real deal. That’s a healthy 7 and 11% increase in hp/tq over 1985’s tried and true Holley carburetor.  All of which signaled the end to our fascination with glorified toilet bowls on engines. For the better!

Imagine if the direct injected 5.0 pulls a “1987” on us: the 412hp/390tq we see today will be nothing compared to the 441hp/433tq of our near future. It’s entirely possible. But will history repeat itself?  Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

91 Comments on “Editorial: Do Not Buy A 2011 Mustang 5.0...”


  • avatar
    Paul Niedermeyer

    The Mercedes 300SL already had direct injection in the nineteen fifties.

    • 0 avatar

      Shameless plug alert!

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-1958-mercedes-300sl-factory-restored/

    • 0 avatar
      Uncle Mellow

      That was injection direct into the manifold , not into the cylinder. Mitsubishi were first with direct injection into the cylinder on a petrol engine ( in the late 90′s )

    • 0 avatar
      Uncle Mellow

      Sorry about that Paul – I never realised the fuel injection on the 300SL was straight into the cylinder until your comment made me look at the history.

    • 0 avatar
      Windy

      Thank you Paul,
      for setting the record straight
      I recall when Mitsubishi was called on this re their “first” they said the 300SL of the 50s was “not really a production car”
      One of the problems with the MB mechanical system was gas dilution of the oil when cold and if you did not get the engine up to temp and keep it there for a while for each start all that huge amount of oil in the dry sump system could get rather stinky My dad changed the oil on his gullwing every 1000 to 1500 miles in the winter as a result (we bought castrol racing oil by the case.
      the injector had a diaphragm that as best I can recall was a sandwich of rubber and camel skin that was part of the way the system dealt with changes in operating altitude and was something that was a pain to replace until my Dad cut an access hole in the full belly pan (held with dzus fasteners) so the pans did not have to dropped each time it needed replacement.
      the nineteen fifties 300 SL engine was rather remarkable for its day and as for the 300SLR engine of the race version with its Desmodromic valves and its built up crank it still looks like it could be a modern engine design in part
      Cheers
      Windy

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

      Was it high-pressure like modern common-rails?

      (and where’s HCCI?)

    • 0 avatar
      CB313

      hmm  i would have just overlooked it as some kind of mark from the casting process lol.. i see your points. i bet people who purchased 2010′s are bummed they didn’t wait for the current 5.0.. but anyhow i have a couple thoughts about the DI idea. i noticed it’s on the exhaust side of the combustion chamber, does this matter in DI?? i would think not because incoming air no longer carries fuel into the combustion chamber, what do you think?? other systems i’ve googled seem to be on the intake side.. it appears the injector would have to somehow protrude through the exhaust port to get there from above.. and i noticed on the top there doesnt appear to be much room, and there are exhaust studs just outside the wall in that area, sure the most empty space is above that spot, but, it sure looks like it would be extremely on the edge of the cylinder head.. funny place for a fuel rail, maybe just funny looking?? i’m no engineer.. lol those are just some of my thoughts.. thanks for the article!!    i agree, excellent points..
      BTW GOOOGLE 2011 5.0 HEADS for more top/bottom pics of the heads, and intake manifold..

    • 0 avatar
      Canucknucklehead

      Direct injection was used in every Daimler-Benz aviation engine of World War 2 and went a long way to compensate for the German’s lack of hi-octane fuels. The aircraft also did no suffer engine cut out when when the pilot suddenly dived.

  • avatar
    Daanii2

    Good point that the internal combustion engine still improves. But there’s nothing like a Moore’s Law going here. Instead, as Rick Wagoner said, all the carmakers can do now is just wring the towel.

    All the big improvements to the internal combustion engine have been made. Theoretical limits (like the second law of thermodynamics) are being felt. Sure, these improvements are worth doing. Just don’t expect much.

  • avatar
    murphysamber

    you had me at “Don’t buy a 2011 Mustang 5.0″

  • avatar

    Excellent points. Question to you: are the theoretical limits closer to fruition in ICE or electric motors? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • 0 avatar
      protomech

      The best electric motors are around 95% efficient. Not much room for improvement there, despite some ridiculous (or ridiculously presented) claims.
      http://www.designnews.com/article/510285-MPP_Motor_Powers_Brammo_Electric_Race_Bike.php

      The theoretical thermodynamic limit for combustion engines are around 40%. Most combustion engines are around 20%, so there’s a good ways to go. DI, electromagnetic valve control, HCCI are all interesting technologies that are starting to find application.

      Power grid gas turbines (a tiny fraction of the US power comes from gas) can get up to 60% efficiency by harvesting the combustion heat (combined cycle).

      I figured the Mustang would see direct injection in time for the 2014 refresh (50th anniversary go!). It’s such a huge economy/performance gain, but it’s a one-time thing.. makes more sense to unveil it for the anniversary rather than before, as long as the mustang is already doing well vs the camaro.

    • 0 avatar
      quiksilver180

      For me, it’s a somewhat difficult choice. I don’t drive except on the weekends so I use a car for mostly fun. I would love to get an electric car, but it’s a double edged sword… In a way, I want electric cars to grow and expand, but I don’t want to see the loss of cheaper performance cars (either electric or ICE) with people moving towards more “vanilla” cars. And I believe there was a stat either here or Jalopnik where the car enthusiast crowd is shrinking, which may make it harder for larger companies like GM, Toyota, and Ford to start limiting their performance models since it won’t be as cost effective.

      Protomech makes some good points and I agree that ICEs have much more room for improvement. So it may just be a wait and see when companies are pushed by CAFE to increase fuel economy that they don’t sacrifice some performance.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

      Replacing sparkplugs with lasers?

      Laser + splitter = multipoint ignition in the cylinder? Is that what HCCI needs?

  • avatar

    Not too surprising.

    GM’s upcoming next generation smallblock will be employing direct-injection, variable valve-timing among other things. It’s rumored to start at 5.5 liters.

  • avatar

    Then I’d never be able to buy anything, or so it seems, as things are always improving. TVs, cameras, cars, you can just sit around and wait for the next best model, or go with the known quantity, such is life.

    Imagine those people who bought a 2010 GT…

    • 0 avatar

      The horsepower improvement won’t be nearly as dramatic as that from 2010 to 2011. Sajeev is probably about right, 25-30 horsepower. Which won’t be easy to even notice in an engine already so powerful.

      Now if he had said that Ford was finally going to give the car a decent rear suspension, I’d agree that people should wait.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      You might not see big power numbers, but you’d see small gains in both power and efficiency.

    • 0 avatar

      Jack said he’s driven GT and some super-GT Mustangs on the track and they were ok despite the solid axle. There was a TTAC article about it. I suspect the “modern” style tires help it by accident. They do not require camber increases with the bounce travel to retain corner grip.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Jack said he’s driven GT and some super-GT Mustangs on the track and they were ok despite the solid axle.

      I have to deal with New England roads. Lots of twists, bumps, and occasional frost heaves in the spring. They wreak havoc on the Mustangs I’ve driven. Maybe they’ve made some improvements in the 2010/11, but track performance alone isn’t enough to sell me.

    • 0 avatar
      talkstoanimals

      I bought a 2010 GT and am unperturbed by the arrival of the 2011. Nor would the introduction of DI bother me. I liked the car just fine when I decided to buy, and I still do. It’s plenty fast for the street and my manhood is not threatened by the presence of more powerful Mustangs on the road now.

      However, the car’s repeated problems with the clutch and differential requiring lengthy service visits? Yeah, those tick me right off.

  • avatar

    This may be a good guess at the evolution roadmap, but the suggestion is rather dubious. Just like you go to war with an army you have and not one you wish to have or wish you might have had, the cars on the market are what they are. If you sit on a money pit car, is waiting for a better 5.0 worth the loss? More importantly, the example of Jag works both ways. Just as non-DI engine in ‘stang is better than DI in Jag, some other engine may be better than Ford’s speculated upgrade by the time it appears.

  • avatar
    stuart

    Dumb Question:

    Assume that the port-injection and direct-injection systems inject the same amount of fuel (probably wrong; the direct system probably injects less). We’re adding some quantity of gasoline to some quantity of air. Why/how does the direct-injection system lower the cylinder temp?

    IOW, the port-injection system added the same amount of cooling gasoline before compression, presumably absorbing some of the heat of compression. Why is the cylinder temp lower if the gas is added at the end of the compression stroke?

    Thanks in advance,

    stuart

    • 0 avatar
      srogers

      The phase change from liquid to gas absorbs heat in the combustion chamber.

    • 0 avatar

      Right. The higher pressure and location of the fuel injection make for a more impressive cooling charge.

    • 0 avatar
      stuart

      > The phase change from liquid to gas absorbs heat in the combustion chamber.

      Thanks for the reply, but I’m still not comprehending.

      The gasoline sprayed from a port injector winds up in the same combustion chamber, no? When the intake valve closes and the piston compresses the mixture, wouldn’t the port-injected fuel vaporize, absorbing about the same amount of heat as the direct-injected stuff?

      Sorry to be dense,

      stuart

    • 0 avatar

      @stuart: think about what happens before compression in the cylinder. Because that’s the big difference here.

      When gas leaves the DI injector (@2000psi) it does so as a liquid. It turns into a low pressure (@ something like 0psi) gas. And when this happens, the effect is a cooling of the area…hence the name cooling charge. And the cooling differential between gasoline and a hot combustion chamber is significant.

      Point is, that doesn’t happen in port injection. The fuel injector operates at much lower pressure, and it is injected into a much cooler area. So no, they really aren’t alike at all.

    • 0 avatar
      CowboyNate

      Think about it this way: canned air is room temp before you spray it.
      Spray it for a while and the can gets too cold to hold.

      When the gasoline was compressed (from 10ish PSI to 2000ish PSI), it got hot, like an air compressor does. However, it was cooled back to room temp(ish) before being injected into the cylinder. When it uncompreses, the heat energy that was released during compression has to be re-absorbed. This makes everything colder.

      So why compress the gasoline so much? The inside of a compressed cylinder is, well, compressed. Think about which direction your coke will go if you shake up the bottle, then try to open it to pour in a little more.

  • avatar

    Moore’s law only applies to transistor count.

    • 0 avatar
      MattPete

      Thank-you. It annoys me to no end that Moore’s law has been applied to chip clock speed or computing power. It’s kinda like the difference between hacker and cracker: a hacker is someone who turn out quick, nasty, but sometimes brilliant code. A cracker is someone who tries to maliciously tries to break into computer systems/networks/software, etc.

    • 0 avatar

      I didn’t know that. Next time I hear a car person talk about Teslas and Moore’s Law, I’m gonna toss this at them.

      Oh, and their stock price.

  • avatar
    ccd1

    One problem that has been mentioned in a Porsche forum I follow is that Audi has had problems with carbon buildup with DI. No reported problems with carbon buildup in Porsches that I know of, but some are concerned this may appear. The problem seems most likely to appear if you don’t drive the car like you stole.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      +1: A lot of DI engines are having carbon build up problems. I’d rather have the current tech and avoid the hassles.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      You see it a lot in Mini Cooper forums also, and from what I’ve heard DI BMWs also suffer from carbon build up. Supposedly an oil catch can will help, I have one waiting for me to install it. But it would be nice if the manufacturers would get on top of this.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      Oh, great….

      Has there been any word on the ecoboosted engines having this build up problem?

      Are we suggesting I drive it even faster to avaoid such a problem?

      Just asking.
      I will need an explination for my wife.

      • 0 avatar
        autodoctor911

        I have seen the buldup in the ecoboost engines: it seems to just be there, not really causing problems yet, but I’m sure that extreme cases of cold start, drive to work and shut it off without ever warming up fully, and more importantly, never using enough throttle to achieve boost, or even get the revs up to what they need to be(it is programmed to try and achieve the revs via late shifts when cold for this and other reasons)wil result in reduced power due to extreme buildup. Surely ford will come out with a procedure to clean it out and restore power for the service technicians. It reminds me of the problems with the vulcan 3.0. they would carbon up inside the combustion chamber from similiar driving. It seems like I have to do this every year on my sisters 05 taurus. The decarbonize procedure for those wouldn’t work as well on intake flowpath before the valves though.

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      Italian tune up, anyone? Just do what my dad used to do with his old Mustang when he was afraid he was going to get carbon build up from infrequent, short trips. Make an excuse to stand on the accelerator while the wife’s along for the ride. “Hey Sweetie, this vinyl seat is dang hot. Will you grab that towel from the back seat and slide it under me?” (Then he’d stand on the accelerator (much to her chagrin) while she put the towel under his butt.)

    • 0 avatar
      John Horner

      Fouling of the intake valves is a problem on many direct injection (DI) engines, and it is the loss of a previous side effect which accounts for it. Remember that the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) of the engine sump still travels through the intake manifold and intake valve for eventual burning in the cylinder. With a conventional fuel injection (or, shudder, carburetor) the fuel is constantly washing the intake valve and can remove the modest amount of stuff deposited there by the PCV system. With DI, the fuel never touches the intake valve and you don’t get the cleaning side effect.

      This reminds me of the exhaust valve seat problems which showed up when lead was taken out of fuels. Little did we know, but the lead deposits were acting as a solid lubricant for the exhaust valve to seat area. Hardened valve seats fixed that problem, but it was a surprise at the time.

      It seems that DI engines are going through a similar learning curve. Methods to separate the deposit causing materials from the PCV flow before introduction into the intake manifold are where the engineering action is at. Luckily for Ford and GM, they are not the first ones making DI engines and thus they can learn from the issues other companies have run into.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        If you’ll notice, the DI engines in the Lexus cars employ a second injector in the intake port. It certainly seems possible that Toyota has located it there to periodically “wash” the intake valve. Of course, managing two injectors per cylinder is more complex.

        A so-called “Italian tuneup” isn’t going to work on a DI engine, because the air coming into the engine is “dry” (i.e. without fuel) whether you’re running the engine at part or full load.

        I would guess that this problem would have to be dealt with in the shop by running some sort of solvent into the intake of a running engine to loosen and burn the gunk off or develop a better system to trap oil, etc. out of the PCV system before the air gets dumped into the intake manifold.

  • avatar
    patman

    This isn’t much of a secret. Direct injection was discussed in the giant article about the Coyote 5.0L in 5.0 Mustangs & Super Fords magazine as well as a similar article in Hot Rod magazine. Direct injection and turbo/supercharging were both “protected” in the design of the motor – I’ll have to look at the magazine pics to see if that spot is present in the heads they shot* but there was no conspiracy to hide the fact that eventually, the motor would be DI. And boosted. DI wasn’t needed to achieve their initial power, economy and emissions goals so it wasn’t used. It’ll probably appear down the road though.

    For the last 30 years, Mustangs have been steadily inching up in power every few years with the occasional leap here and the occasional plateau there – if you worry too much about how much power next year’s is going to have then you’ll be missing out on another year’s worth of fun driving one you could’ve had if you had just bought one now.

    *edit: In fact, looking at the pics in 5.0M&SF, that spot is there – they mention that it “is a locating pad used at the factory” which may or may not be a cover up. There’s no obvious provision for injectors on the exhaust side of the head though. They would have to be above the exhaust ports though – there’s a hollowed out area above 3 of the for ports to save weight and then a flat spot for a part number stamping above the other port (cylinder #2 or #3 depending on how you look at it).

    links:

    http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/index.html

    http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_1004_2011_mustang_engine/index.html

    • 0 avatar
      tankinbeans

      Please forgive me (I’m sure this answer is easy, but I’m f**ked if I know the difference between turbocharging and supercharging), but can somebody explain the difference? I’ve gained a lot of interesting factoids from this site and turbo vs super charging has always confused me.

    • 0 avatar
      patman

      They are both forms of supercharging (stuffing more air into an engine than it can ingest on it’s own) but superchargers or blowers generally refer to a compressor driven by the crankshaft via a belt or gears whereas turbos are driven by a turbine in the exhaust stream.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      tankinbeans: Turbo charging is forced induction powered by the escaping exhaust gases and super-charging is driven by a direct pulley attached to the engine (much like the AC unit). I’m sure Wiki can fill in the details.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharging

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

  • avatar
    william442

    Why then were cars with big Holleys so much more fun.I bet no F.I. system has ever set a Corvette hood on fire.

    • 0 avatar
      autodoctor911

      yes, a fuel injection system has set a corvett hood on fire. I was doing the same thing that usually causes fire to come out of a carburetor with the dual throttle body injected 84 vette: cranking it over with the ignition wires out of place, and boom, flames coming out. actually, the one I was working on just scorched the underhood area slightly, but if it was closed , it may have started fire.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Given the upcoming 2016 CAFE fuel economy rules, it is likely that DI will be used for better economy, not more power. Of course, that depends on what GM does with the Camaro. Imagine a 412hp Mustang GT that gets 30 MPG highway..

    • 0 avatar
      Highway27

      In a general sense, all the increases in engine output per fuel amount come down to more efficient engines. For most applications of the vehicles we end up discussing, this manifests in higher power output for the same amount of fuel, or a higher power output for a slightly lower amount of fuel.

      However, if those same engine efficiency gains were entirely put into fuel mileage, you could keep the power output constant and increase the fuel economy.

      Basically, the increase in power shows how the market pushes the direction for the engineers. People prefer using the gains in efficience for more power at the same (or slightly better) fuel usage. Some cars have gone the other direction, and increased fuel mileage, but usually those go much farther and do things like reduce weight, or reduce the drag.

      Saying “Buy the new 2012 Mustang! Same power as the 2011 but with better fuel economy!” isn’t going to sell a lot of Mustangs, even if the increased economy is something that people would end up appreciating. But saying “It’s got 5 more HP, and gets better fuel mileage!” is going to get more attention.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    The 2011 Sonata has DI, yielding 200 hp from 2.4L, with excellent fuel economy, driveability, and emissions to boot.

    I agree with carguy622: you can’t wait forever to buy. But the headline was catchy.

  • avatar
    jj99

    When you said not to buy a 2011 Mustang, I thought you had discovered either:

    1) Ford’s Consumer Reports reliability report that shows a Ford within the 5 to 10 year old age bracket is not as reliabile as Toyota or Honda;

    2) The Mustang has a 1970s style solid rear axle that, in certain conditions, is dangerous under acceleration.

    However, did you consider the possibility that Ford will not put direct injection on the Mustang 5.0 because the solid rear axle, which is already a real problem, might present Ford with lawsuits after the solid rear axle contributes to accidents because of the extra HP?

    • 0 avatar
      iNeon

      Solid axles aren’t bad. Have you driven a vehicle with one? I didn’t care for it at first(went from a neon w/ independent rear to the PT w/ solid) but it’s certainly not a safety issue.

      Edit: All vehicles are safety concerns under certain circumstances.

    • 0 avatar
      PaulieWalnut

      “However, did you consider the possibility that Ford will not put direct injection on the Mustang 5.0 because the solid rear axle, which is already a real problem, might present Ford with lawsuits after the solid rear axle contributes to accidents because of the extra HP?”

      I doubt it. After all they’ve happily been putting 500+ horsepower through that axle for years in the GT500.

    • 0 avatar
      Wizard

      You’re kidding right? A solid axle is a safety concern? It’s not even a handling concern when done right. Motor Trend just ran a Mustang against a BMW M3 at Willow Springs. The Mustang bested the BMW in straight line acceleration and skip pad grip but more telling is that it was only .09 seconds behind the M3 in track lap times. Their comment regarding the Mustang’s solid axle… “That live rear axle setup? A non-issue for both of us.”

    • 0 avatar

      Keep in mind that when the Mustang (2003 Cobra) did have a cost-engineered IRS, its core clientele switched it back to the solid axle for durability in drag racing conditions.

      Much like cheap wine, solid axles are crude and nothing more.

    • 0 avatar

      Tracks tend to have better surfaces than public roads.

      While I would not call the solid axle a safety issue, the 2011 Mustang is far less composed on real life roads because of it. I drove a 2011 GT a couple of weeks ago and was surprised by the amount of dancing performed by the rear end. A shame, because it’s quite a car otherwise.

      The car I drove had the standard suspension. The optional performance/track package might help a little.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      I’ve driven an 09 Mustang over curvy frost heave riddled New England roads. I couldn’t even get close to the speed I can take a BMW over the same roads.

      • 0 avatar
        autodoctor911

        I bet the BMW can’t get close to the speed You could take those roads in a Focus(or similiar) rally car, either. I don’t really see why someone would want to take a performance car and punish it like that just to get from here to there. now driving any type of surface conditions to the limit of a vehicles performance capability is great fun, but I wouldn’t do it on a public road in a nice car that I own and use. Is the mustang enough slower that it would delay you on your commute as much as checking yourself out in the mirror each time you get ready to drive by some people you don’t even know and seeing if they are impressed by your car?

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        Actually, the speeds I was talking about was the speed limit. The Mustangs I’ve driven on these roads (especially near my house) have had difficulty maintaining the speed limit. It’s not necessarily the speed either, but more of a safety factor. Small frost heaves can crop up over night and totally upset the rear of some solid axle cars. Not a comfortable feeling when the only thing between you and the water is about 36 inches of dirt and a couple of scrub 1 inch diameter trunk maples.

      • 0 avatar
        autodoctor911

        so, is it some live axle cars that don’t allow you to safely go the “speed limit”, or specifically the mustang in it’s current form? All cars have compromises. The M3 has Brakes that cannot keep pace on challenging sprints down a twisty mountain road. the Mustang axle may cause some wheel hop, and skidding over rough roads, but with the level of grip it has, this should not bring you near the edge of being able to control it at legal speeds. Are you attempting to try and maintain the speed limit through rough, bumpy tight curves, that surely have posted yellow speed suggestion signs posted that are based on 40 year old cars’ capabilities, and surely could be taken at twice that in a good modern car, as long as there aren’t chunks of missing asphault?

    • 0 avatar

      That’s actually a 1910-style solid rear axle. Or, if we’re not limited to cars, then an oxcart from 3500BC.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      “…1) Ford’s Consumer Reports reliability report that shows a Ford within the 5 to 10 year old age bracket is not as reliabile as Toyota or Honda;

      2) The Mustang has a 1970s style solid rear axle that, in certain conditions, is dangerous under acceleration.

      However, did you consider the possibility that Ford will not put direct injection on the Mustang 5.0 because the solid rear axle, which is already a real problem, might present Ford with lawsuits after the solid rear axle contributes to accidents because of the extra HP?…”

      Have you misplaced your copy of “Speed Kills”? Point 1: Who gives two sh!ts? I’ll bet most people have good experience with their old Fords than bad. I have. Point 2: Irrelevant and incorrect. We all get it. Only Honda and Toyota are worth buying. Everything else sucks. We know because that unbiased, perfect source of car knowledge, CR, says so. The buff books no nothing. Maybe that is where you picked up your knowledge of suspension design. Yeah, it is foolish to stick with the solid axle. I’m willing to bet you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, likely because CR says to nurse the gas pedal. Gosh, do you drive 55 in the left lane, too?

  • avatar
    carguy

    Catchy headline but if that was a reason not to buy something then no one would buy much of anything – especially not mobile phones.

    The further evolution of the 3.7 and 5.0 is inevitable (and welcome) but I doubt that Ford will significantly turn up the power unless GM and Chrysler go there first. I would guess meeting new CAFE rules will be the more likely goal.

  • avatar
    Stingray

    I have a better proposal. Buy one now, enjoy, sell it in 3 years. By that time the new engine should be out.

    In those 3 years, a lot can happen: naaaaawwwwwwzzzz, supercharger, turbo, cams, who knows.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Sajeev, your comments were a little too breathless and beneath you, kind of like one of the Motor Trend hacks after getting back from track day.

    If someone wants to buy a 412-hp GT now, why dissuade them? This isn’t “Tool Time.” There is no possible way to really use the extra power on an everyday basis.

  • avatar
    forditude

    This is not exactly a secret. The Mustang buff books have been reporting on this when the 5.0 Coyote was still in early development.

    Besides, you have it all wrong. You WANT to buy a Mustang before they go DI. One of the reasons (other than the 2016 regs) they went with port injection is to protect the aftermarket. Ford knows that the huge Mustang aftermarket is part of the reason for the car’s success, and DI totally changes the game for them. Want to upgrade your cams, intake, or bolt on a supercharger? With port injection, you just upgrade to larger injectors and an adjustable regulator and go. Not so easy with direct injection, as the injectors and fuel rails are not user accessible, require a different fuel pump setup, and has pressures that are orders of magnitude higher than port injection. Even the 3v motor found in the 2005-2010 models require a computer calibration for a lowly cold air intake to keep the motor from running slightly lean. When DI hits, everyone will be starting from zero when it comes to cracking the ECU and getting more fuel, so Ford is working with their aftermarket partners to ensure that they won’t be left out in the cold. Anyway, have fun waiting for your non-modifiable DI Mustang, the smart money is on the 2011/2012 models.

    • 0 avatar

      Ford normally does a great job keeping aftermarket vendors in the loop, but yes, the DI Mustangs will be slower than boosted 2011s for some time. Then again, there are plenty of hot Foxy Mustangs that are just as powerful in a far lighter (superior?) package for drag applications.

      I’d counter that the smartest money is in a turbo’d 5.0 Mustang LX notchback, because it’s a slippery slope when you talk modded cars versus factory fresh ones.

      But kudos to you for that relevant analysis.

    • 0 avatar

      The aftermarket will adapt. There is already plenty of tuning knowledge for Diesel Injection.

      Diesel Power, a sister magazine to Hot Rod is full of guys who have turned up their big block Diesels to “11″.

      This could end up being a plus as the new injectors will allow you to unlock 5-20% more power with ECU changes if you don’t care about fuel economy or emissions.

      I wonder if DI gas engines will get fuel/water separators? Replacing blown injectors at $250+/ea will make for some unhappy customers.

  • avatar

    As large as the Small Block Chevy performance community is, I’m surprise, really surprised that Edelbrock or some other company that makes aftermarket heads for the SBC like Brodix doesn’t make a head for the Chevy V8 with direct injection.

  • avatar

    Ford engineers already revealed this during the interviews they gave in the press rollout months ago. Several magazines were savvy enough to report it back then. And other engineers have publicly – although generally – discussed the overall rollout of D.I. inside Ford over the next several years. The 3.7 will also receive it and their Ti-VCT head also has accommodations for the D.I.

    And, no, the reason the current 5 liter has port injection has nothing to do with somehow favoring the aftermarket or “drag racers”. That’s ridiculous. That’s not how business investment decisions are made or how Government mandates are met.

    It has solely to do with cost, and the new engine’s ability to meet it’s objectives without the extra cost of the D.I. hardware required.

    When D.I. does get here, the engine will have even better drivability, as anybody knows who has owned a car with D.I. And better torque, HP, mileage, emissions,and A/F precision. D.I. is one of those technologies which does indeed do good in every respect. The engine will probably also get a compression ratio boost (note Mazda’s new D.I. 4 cylinders – featuring 13 and 14-1 compression!!) at the same time which will improve torque even more.

    As for the aftermarket, remember that the ’80s Mustang created the modern aftermarket, almost single handedly. And Mustang tuners have met and exceeded every single challenge handed to them – including Port Injection. When port injection came out (’84 SVO first, and the 4.9 liter V-8 in ’86 – both of which I had) the fear mongers back then told everybody to get a new Mustang before P.I. came out. Ridiculous then, disproven very quickly back then (I was there), and ridiculous now.

    There’s lots more coming, including variable valve lift – which is once again an emissions and mileage-driven change but which again will mean even more performance for us all. And when the next-gen Mustang comes out and hopefully drops a couple of hundred pounds (and adds the IRS), our world will get even better yet.

    -Jeff
    DrivingEnthusiast.net
    (>12k images and pages, Mustang blogs, more)

    • 0 avatar
      forditude

      No one said that the aftermarket was the sole reason, or even in the top 10. Cost is almost always the primary reason.

      However, Ford engineers go to numerous drag and road racing events, shows, SEMA, etc. to speak with Mustang owners and enthusiasts, and they know that it’s nearly impossible to find a bone-stock Mustang. Not to mention their legendary technology transfer program with their top-tier partners. Aftermarket tuners don’t create these ECU tunes with magic, they partner with Ford to ensure driveability, sensor and emissions concerns are met.

      As far as the port injection 80′s scene, it was almost totally due to the ’89+ mass air system that allowed racers to make almost any mod they wanted knowing that the computer would compensate. Totally different from today where the MAF has gone the way of the dodo and every single modification requires a retune. Not saying that the aftermarket won’t respond, but look how long it has taken for the 2v and 4v non-Cobra motors to get parts.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    If everyone took your advice, no one would buy a car that is likely to be updated.

    Chrysler sales would skyrocket.

  • avatar
    Mike999

    About Electric Cars,
    You Forgot the Battery, Again.

    We are at NiMH batteries now, and on the cusp of Lithium Ion generation.
    Take the 2010 Insight, just swap in the new Li battery and you get:
    - More Torque, More Speed.
    - More Electric Engine Hill climbing over taller longer hills.
    - More Fuel Economy.

    Then, the next generation is Ultra-Capacitor’s.
    Guy,s the ICE is DEAD, and, You’re going to love it.

  • avatar
    Wheeljack

    I hate to be paranoid, but I have some big concerns with DI – Maybe I’m just imagining things, but it seems like increasing fuel pressure to 2000+ PSI will increase the sensitivity of the fuel system to fuel quality, which already is less than stellar in this country.

    I’ve seen this same issue in HPCR diesels – they are now fairly hypersensitive to fuel quality (as compared with the old low-pressure diesels), especially where small dust/dirt particles are concerned. Particles as small as 2-3 microns can damage HPCR pumps and injectors, and if an injector starts failing, it can take out a diesel catalayst and particulate filter with it. Seems like most OEM fuel filters on diesel passenger cars and light trucks filter down to the 5 micron range, so they are potentially going to have problems down the road. Heavy truck filters often go down to the 2-3 micron range, and that is where you really need to be to offer adequate protection.

    I guess what I’m getting at with my sidetrack into the world of diesels is that I’m not entirely confident that the car manufacturers will spend the money necessary to specify filters that adequately protect the expensive DI components for longevity greater than say 150,000 miles, which means some will probably fail earlier. I’ll take my low-pressure fuel injection, thank you very much….

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m all for affordable direct injection V8s.

    However, all of the present problems on the Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro have nothing to do with their respective V8 engines.

    I would rather see manufacturers address those non-powertrain things before adding 20-40 horsepower.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The advantages of live rear axles are performance related while the advantages of indepentents are safety/comfort related. So the Mustang will eventually get an IRS.
    Many things can cause oversteer, not just LRAs over frost heaves or irregular road conditions. Even with traction-nannies and IRS, a car can snap into an oversteer, sideways situation. Most drivers will lift of the gas, compounding the situation, after all, that what they taught us in ‘driver’s ed’.
    “Lift off the gas and steer towards the skid” they said. The opposite is true; Lifting off the gas transfers the cars weight off the rear tires. That’s the opposite of what you want. “Steer into the skid” is wrong also. What if you’re skidding towards oncoming traffic? Steer towards the exit in a turn.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    An engine needs to last for many models of a particular car. It makes sense that when Ford did a clean sheet design for the 5.0 V8 that they would have included provisions to include DI at some point in the future, but I wouldn’t expect to see it anytime soon, especially since the 2011 engine lineup is brand new.

    Considering that with 2011 models the 5.4 liter V8 is no longer used in the F-series, which was the big volume channel for those engines, I’d expect to see the Shelby GT500 be the first to adopt the 5.0 with DI and forced induction. Ford will likely use up the existing supply of 5.4s and parts to build them in Expeditions and Navigators, and once they are gone, move those vehicles to the 5.0 and 6.2 as well. Once that is all done, it doesn’t make sense to keep the 5.4 around for one small niche trim of a model.

    The Ford Racing Supercharger already gives the current 5.0 525hp in the base tune configuration. With DI and a turbo setup that reduces parasitic loss, a next gen Shelby could easily top 600hp with the 5.0.

  • avatar
    niky

    I kind of agree with forditude… I’d rather get a port-injection car for now.

    DI is more expensive to make, requires better fuel management and faster computers, is harder to retune and is much more sensitive to gasoline quality. Sure, the technology is maturing, and direct injection diesels are now approaching the point where you can expect over 100,000 miles out of them without issues… but it’ll be a few more years before the price for DI systems comes down enough for everyone to get it (much like electronic injection and ignition are now).

    “Mike999
    August 31st, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    Then, the next generation is Ultra-Capacitor’s.
    Guy,s the ICE is DEAD, and, You’re going to love it.”

    Great. We’ll get back to you in twenty years when ultra-capacitors go commercial.

    Given that the price point of electrics and the projected volume of production over the next two decades don’t even come close to meeting the needs of about 90% of the global motoring public (a Nissan LEAF costs more than my house…), upgrades that make the cars they CAN buy more fuel efficient and less polluting are just as important as developing technologies that will eventually take those cars off the road.

    Just because we’re “only” fifty years away from Nuclear Fusion doesn’t mean that we can shut down all the Coal Plants right now.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    i would rather have a PFI Mustang

    let the Germans and Japanese mess around with direct injection issues

    to me it’s still not ready for game time

  • avatar
    davey49

    Honestly, if you can wait to buy a Mustang maybe you don’t really deserve to buy one at all. A Mustang is a car that you should want to get immediately. You can wait for midsize sedans or minivans

    • 0 avatar
      dedrick427

      I created an account just so I could reply to this and say ‘this is a 100% damned true statement!’ I’ve already started my journey to purchase a 2012 GT Mustang! I know it might get cheaper next year… I might be able to find one used… the Newer Mustangs might be better, but dammit, I want this NOW!

  • avatar
    Boff

    Hahaha I saw the headline and valves hanging down like that and I reckoned the 5.0 was an interference design! [/ex-944 owner]

  • avatar
    Mr. Nonnymoose

    Sajeev, if you study the picture closer you will notice that the boss is on the exhaust side of the chamber (smaller valves), whereas all DI engines I know have the injector on the intake valve side (except those that have the injector centrally located next to the spark plug).

    That boss looks suspiciously like a cast datum that is used to set up the machining of the part.

    I guess it’s OK to go and buy one now afterall.

  • avatar
    YeomanDroid

    I don’t know about this DI stuff, all I care about is what I can get without having a blower on top of my engine with the added weight. Right now I’m pretty enamored with the BOSS 302 putting out a whopping 444 horsepower in regular driving mode, with trackey (the red one) God only knows what this beast will put out. It seems classified right now. Whatever the case, here’s a bonafide muscle car pumping out 444 horsepower with only 5.0 liters of displacement (no superchargers, no turbo charging), just pure unadulterated natural aspiration. I think this speaks volumes of what Coyote can do and can be many years from now. Sure add more fuel efficiency, I’m okay with that but for now knowing I can put regular grade fuel in a Mustang GT 5.0 and not severely affect performance is pretty damn cool. I drive a 2005 Pontiac GTO and its a hog on gas with only 400 hp and a whopping 6.0L engine. So I will ignore this and go for what I think is a pretty awesome machine for the money.
    In regards to the rear live axle. Yes, IRS would be nice but axle hop is a problem with IRS too for drag racing. If the Mustang GT 5.0 can handle competing against a BMW M3 at Willow Springs, the BOSS 302 can only be that much better.
    The 5.0 is new, it will evolve and everybody will evolve around it. I’m not worried about any issues with aftermarket tuners keeping up. They will keep up, they have been keeping up and doing a commendable job at it. Plus everybody knows that Mustangs are easiest cars to find performance parts for and there’s a larger consumer base which is $$$$.
     

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    I hope Ford catches their mistake before they mount the injector on the exhaust side.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    I just clicked on the article in hot rod magazine regarding the coyote. According to Ford engineers direct injection is only useful in turbo or supercharged engines, and that the advantage of DI over port injection in naturally aspirated engines is only around 1 percent.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      So, I guess that’s why every Ford Focus from the 2012 MY on has a DI 2 liter engine and, until this year, no turbo offered.

      • 0 avatar
        Moparman426W

        Bruce, I was a bit puzzled when I found out about the Focus now having DI after reading the article. It was either in hot rod or popular hot rodding, and is viewbale online. They did an article on the coyote with pics of the internals and the engineer that they talked with made the statement.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    @auotdoctor, if the plug wires were removed on the vette then how did it shoot flames from the throttle bodies? The spark plugs would not have been firing.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Think he said the wires were routed in correctly (e.g. the wire that was supposed to go for the plug on the #7 cylinder was connected to the #5 or something like that).

      Cranking an engine mis-wired like that can result in the spark plug firing in a cylinder on the intake cycle, with the intake valve opened. The ignited fuel mixture will blow back up the intake channel into the carburetor (if there is one) or the intake manifold in a fuelie engine. Usually, the air cleaner is supposed to suppress any flash from getting outside, but if you have the air cleaner off, or if it’s vestigial (as was common on “souped-up” carburetor engines, then you’ve got a backfire flame in the engine compartment.

      That’s why engines operating even in clean air environments (like inboard boat engines) have flash suppressors on their intakes . . . even diesels.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States