By on June 10, 2013

meandbark-450x255

Spend enough time on the autoblogosphere and you’ll know that most “rumors” propagated by various auto sites are at best worthless garbage created to generate pageview clicks. The best stuff usually doesn’t make it to the pages of the publication, because sources need to be protected, and the juiciest rumors would inevitably somebody’s cover if they were revealed.

Thanks to some of our supplier contacts (hey, if the OEMs won’t talk to us, we’ll go elsewhere), we’ve known a fair bit about the 2015 Mustang for some time. But we didn’t want to publish anything about it just yet, largely because doing so would have meant that a trusted source would have been burned.

But now that Road & Track has spilled the beans on the all new SVT Cobra, (with accurate information that was certainly gleaned from someone deep inside Ford) it’s time for us to show our hand (with the permission of our source). Among the new features appearing on the 2015 Mustang

  • Independent rear suspension (but you knew that).
  • A 3.7L V6, 5.0 V8. The new 2.3L Ecoboost I4 is said to make roughly 270 horsepower.
  • MT82 6-speed will carry over
  • The SVT Cobra will have a 5.2L naturally aspirated V8 with no engine cover. The reason for that is because the new styling (and Euro safety regs) mean a supercharger is not feasible as far as fitting under the hood goes.
  • There will be further option packages for the SVT car to make it even more hardcore and track-oriented

 

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

85 Comments on “R&T Gets Rumors Right: All-Motor SVT Mustang On The Way, Plus More 2015 ‘Stang Information...”


  • avatar

    I’ll be on the highway…

    Waiting…

    youtube.com/watch?v=EAUGQABm-WI

  • avatar
    Flybrian

    Euro safety regulations. Please stop. Seriously. Stop homogenizing cars into blobs. Enlightened Europeans – learn to walk.

  • avatar
    CarnotCycle

    Sad that it took European bureaucrap to convince a car maker to ditch the Tupperware-on-engine fetish. Small victories.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      The Tupperware on the current GT500 is non-existent and the Boss only had a two plastic panels covering the intake runners and fuel rail/harness. The GT has a little more than the Boss but the engine is right there in plain view.

  • avatar
    @markthebike

    no engine cover=good I like machines
    no blower=bad, piss off and ruin your own continent

  • avatar
    gpolak

    Will the steering wheel finally telescope? If I can’t get a comfortable driving position, all other specs are meaningless.

  • avatar
    raph

    5.2 NA V8 – well there goes the party, this next gen Mustang better be seriously light weight. I can’t see this 5.2 putting down more than 500hp. Not that Ford couldn’t whip up a naturally aspirated V8 making major steam, its just that nobody could afford it since the only real way to make power is to rev the bejesus out of the engine and this proposed 5.2 V8 is more than likely based on the 5.0 which has a not to rev friendly 92.7mm stroke

    If Ford’s claims are to be believed then the current GT500 has piston speeds that are F1 crazy with the 5.8’s 105.8mm stroke which in over-rev is about 81 feet per second.

    Guessing perhaps that Ford used its plasma spray technology to give this engine its extra .2 liters of capacity and still maintain its same stroke such an engine would rev just shy of 8,000 rpm with nearly the same piston speed as the 5.8 which would be F1 engine piston speed crazy using much heavier components.

    Ford has said its Boss engine has a valve train stable to around 8400 rpm so lets just use that as a rough estimate of how high this might rev ignoring the piston speed issue other than that’s where Ford might set peak power in the interest of not having connecting rods and pistons exit the engine like some sort of modern day trebuchet.

    so lets see? The current Boss makes 444hp with port injection and an 11:1 compression ratio, maybe with DI it will pick up 1/2 a point to a full point which would bump power another 4%, so we’re up to 462hp in 5.0 liter form with peak power coming in at 7500 rpm, bump that to 5.2 liters and 480hp at 7500 rpm and bump that some more with more RPM (perhaps its Cobrajet intake manifolds for everybody) so that peak power comes in at 8000 rpm and that’d bump it to around 512hp all while using less than exotic powered metal rods and forged pistons.

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      Interesting analysis. Toyota reckoned you need 7000 rpm to generate 100 hp per litre on all the bumph released for the GT86 introduction. That two litre engine has an 86mm stroke, only 6.7mm less than than the Coyote, and probably similarly constrained by shortish connecting rods. That engine sounds tortured at high rpm, though.

      The last 2495cc Coventry Climax 4 cylinder engine back in the early 1960s with only a 2 valve per cylinder head made 236hp at 6750 rpm so Toyota’s estimate seems reasonable.

      What is not reasonable is the current Ferrari 458 Italia V8. Forget its peak output, it makes, according to Ferrari, 398 lb-ft of torque at a mere 6000 rpm. That is 454 hp from 4.5 litres at just 6,000 rpm, 101 hp per litre. Nothing else comes close to that level of efficiency – it’s out in front of everyone else by a good 10% in torque per litre.

      Surely Ford and the rest must have had a look at this engine to figure out – how’d they do that, anyway? Because, it should then be relatively easy to get a real harmonious 100 hp per litre at something like 6800 rpm, thus negating the need to rev the living s**t out of the Coyote V8 when it gets DI. Without requiring the last crazy bits Ferrari uses. It has to be great intake, exhaust and valve timing to get such power at only 6,000 rpm. Copy that.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        But the ford has a turbo-4 to use, toyota does not.

        • 0 avatar
          wmba

          @raph was talking about the 5 liter Coyote V8, and lamenting about the maximum output available from that normally aspirated engine. Did you understand that? Apparently not.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Now if only HP per litre mattered at all.

        • 0 avatar
          wmba

          Apparently you didn’t read raph’s post either.

          The Coyote V8 is tapped out displacement-wise. To get 500 hp from 5 liters, you need 100hp per litre. Elementary math.

          So horsepower per liter very much does matter in this case.

        • 0 avatar
          wumpus

          As long as they are stuck with a “one car to rule them all” philosophy of building a single car worldwide with minimal changes being needed for localization, they are stuck with 2.0l engines. The real reason people are talking about hp/l is that as long as Ford is stuck with ~5.0l and NA engines, getting to 500hp becomes tricky (going higher isn’t going to happen). Presumably they could try to build a turbo (if it can take a supercharger it can take a turbo), but it isn’t clear that yet another mustang model could pay for practically re-engineering a whole engine.

          Anybody check to see if a LT1/LSx fits in there?

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        “Nothing else comes close to that level of efficiency – it’s out in front of everyone else by a good 10% in torque per litre.”

        I’m sure its got everything to do with not being cost constrained from materials to production processes. I can’t remember any deep tech articles on Ferrari’s V8, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were using CNC profiled ports and combustion chambers all the way to radiused valve seats in addition to whatever variable intake, exhaust and valve technology they might employ.

      • 0 avatar
        oldcatlady

        As flattering it is for a blue oval fan to hear of a mustang being compared to a ferrari… Its just that. A mustang and a ferrari. The mustang is a car virtually anyone can afford, and is built to be practical in many situations. The ferrari is built to be a car everyone wishes they could afford, and for situations (such as road course) that few will see. This accounts for the intake, cam, and tune differences to say the least.. It isn’t that ford can’t do it, look at the audience ford is appealing next to ferrari.

        But if you look into the aftermarket.. NA coyotes making 520rwhp? What about a cobra jet mustang NA making 600hp out of the 5.0? We are talking about souped up vs not… then again we are talking about ford vs ferrari…

  • avatar
    hubcap

    “The new 2.3L Ecoboost I4 is said to make roughly 270 horsepower.”

    R&T is estimating 350 hp for the 2.3 liter turbo 4.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      350 seems impossible.

      Unless Ford is severely under-tuning its turbo engines a la Volkswagen (don’t tell me that VW 2.0T doesn’t have at least another 40 horsepower it’s not using), there’s no way they’re going to wring 110 more horsepower with only a .3 liter displacement increase and turbo tweaks.

      • 0 avatar

        I’m merely reporting the information I have.

        • 0 avatar
          Athos Nobile

          350 ponies is pushing that little thing a bit too far. It will do it, but it won’t be cheap to get it either reliable or drivable. So I tend to side with the 270HP.

          Any word whether it’s optional or stock? Or which markets will have it? No-cost option?

          • 0 avatar
            W.Minter

            My wild guess:
            I4 2.3l 220 hp = entry level for Europe, 2 yrs after launch
            I4, 2.3l, 270 hp = mid level for Europe, base level for NA (Focus ST mill)
            I4, 2.3l 335 hp = high level for Europe, mid level for NA (Focus RS mill)

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          My trifecta tuned verano 2.0t is making ~350 hp/380trq with down pipe and intake on pump gas. Check out zzp regal 2.0t dyno. You would never know unless you put your foot in it. And when you keep your foot out of it @ 60 mph I see 44 mph, two average.

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        The 2.0t in the Mercedes CLA 45 AMG is claiming 355 hp SAE.

  • avatar
    Commando

    I have totally lost track of all the versions. Will somebody please tell me exactly what is the top dog that one can go into a factory store, buy, and drive away with a warranty?

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Mustang? GT500, it pumps out 662hp, dodges the gas guzzler tax, breaches the 11 second barrier in the 1/4 mile and has a top speed of over 190 mph (since nobody seems to be able to repeat Fords 200+ mph run) while offering some decent if nose heavy handling.

      Right now there is only the V6 Mustang, Mustang GT, and the GT500. The Boss Mustang is effectively out of production as the 2013 model year was its last run.

      There are however a few packages offered such as the California Special which is primarily an appearance package and the Brembo package which offers some of the Boss Mustang’s equipment but not the engine. The V6 also has a performance package which I decline to name since it was the result of a social media contest and proves that if you don’t want a Homer Simpson special, don’t involve the public when it comes to the development of cars or package names.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    The brilliant irony of them accomodating the Euros is that

    – Euros have no money
    – Even if Euros had money, they would not buy a damn Rustang

    Aftermarket blowers are cheap though.

    The question now is what becomes of the Cobra. Are they going to try to make it turn now? Are they going to fix the chassis balance? Are they going to upgrade the cabin’s quality and space (why is the Mustang as big as a V8 5 series and less roomy than a 1 series?????)? I’m really excited to see what Ford comes up with this go around. The C7 Vette has indirectly applied some pressure on this project.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      “The question now is what becomes of the Cobra. Are they going to try to make it turn now? Are they going to fix the chassis balance?”

      What Cobra? They haven’t produced a Cobra since 2004 and as for chassis balance see the Boss 302 which most rags praised as being well sorted.

      “Aftermarket blowers are cheap though.”

      Nothing like OE refinement when it comes to the various sub-systems in the car. Adding an aftermarket blower is fine but when you look at all the rest of the hardware (brakes, beefed up drivetrain, et al) that aftermarket blower isn’t much of deal, especially when it craps all over your warranty which the factory installed forced induction doesn’t.

      “Are they going to upgrade the cabin’s quality and space (why is the Mustang as big as a V8 5 series and less roomy than a 1 series?????)?”

      I’m just chalking this up to pure hyperbole. as the current 5 series is larger in every dimension and the Mustang eschews some space for style compared to the BMWs which trade some styling for packaging efficiency. I’m sure the Mustang loses out on rear seat room compared to the 1 series but that’s to be expected with the Mustang and most buyers know this. I’m 6’2″ and 275 pounds and I comfortably fit in the front with room to spare. I suppose for people taller than me its a tight fit and to put it bluntly a person would have to be grotesquely obese in order to feel pinched.

      “The C7 Vette has indirectly applied some pressure on this project.”
      I doubt it, Mustang’s competitors are naturally Camaro and to a lesser extent Challenger, the 3 series BMW, and the Genesis coupe.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “What Cobra? They haven’t produced a Cobra since 2004″

        To be fair, I’m certain your GT500 has a snake applied to each fender. I wouldn’t blame anyone for being confused.

    • 0 avatar

      The even more brilliant not-so-irony of “accommodating the Euros” is that the Mustang’s new platform is now a global one, which greatly increases the likelihood of other interesting RWD products from Ford (and Lincoln), because there’s global scale etc now.

      Also, it’s about a lot more than the Euros now. Think the Chinese might like a Mustang?

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    @28: GTA is a great way of doing things you would never think of doing in real life.

    Want to run down the street gutting women for fun? Pop in GTA and go to it!

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Very much agreed, and yet some people criticize it.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        Well there are people that shouldn’t be playing GTA, but generally those people shouldn’t be spending too much time with ANYTHING violent because they’re a little whacked in the head.

        I don’t think violent video games make people violent, but if people are a bit crazy anyway, violent video games are probably gonna make it worse.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    Independent rear suspension = the world just ended. What’s next, front wheel drive? Heh.

  • avatar
    mbaruth

    Awesome picture at the top.

  • avatar
    grzydj

    This picture is proof that grown men should not wear shorts.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Bummer on the 5.2L. I when I read N/A Cobra, I was really hoping for a high compression N/A version of the 5.8L they use now. The torque curve of the 5.0L is impressive due to the cam phasing and intake runners, but what that motor can do, the 5.8L could do better.

    I don’t give a crap about fuzzy pumped up peak HP numbers or useless metrics like HP/L, show me the power under the curve.

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      Yup, with a 105.8 mm stroke, the 5.8 should rev like the dickens all right.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Besides possible fitment issues in the new chassis, the 5.8 is pretty much the final evolution of the original mod motor, its about as far as they could take it without a substantial redesign. The coyote V8 is that redesign, but I agree its to bad they couldn’t use the new V8 as jumping point to much larger displacements since the other route to power is obviously adding cubes when you can’t rev the engine high enough or use forced induction.

      At least the new SVT car will have its own engine (sorta) instead of just slapping some beefed up components into the standard 5.0 and slapping some SVT coil covers on there.

  • avatar
    Fordson

    What is all this talk about finally getting a Mustang to handle? The Boss 302 runs faster lap times on almost any course than most anything with a similar power-to-weight ratio, and that basically means it handles and brakes really, really well.

    IRS is coming? Yay. But the current gen of hi-po Mustangs all handle very well.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      There’s lots of reasons the live axle had to go, especially if Lincoln will be utilizing the platform. But it could be the LRA is the Boss 302’s secret weapon at the track. On paper, it’s too similar to an M3, but leaves it in the dust.

    • 0 avatar
      Power6

      Live axle rocks on the track, its the ride handling compromise and rough road handling where it falls short. Not that any of that matters to the Mustang for the most part. No idea if the customers really want the refinement.

      I’m worried the Mustang is going to lose its “American-ness” though pleased to see it might be losing the recylced-retro styling.

      Are you the same Fordson from Insideline/”What’s Hot” commentary, d00d you are out of control over there ha.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Ford listened to Mustang owners about what they wanted in the car and they put the live axle in the S197 on purpose. They could have cribbed the IRS from the LS, but didn’t. Cost reasons aside, a lot of Mustang owners wanted them to keep the 8.8.

        This time around, I suspect they’re looking for a broader appeal, and IRS is gaining more acceptance even on the drag strip with every other competitor now using it.

        As most reviews noted with the 2010 revision, the car handled as good or better than IRS equipped rivals. Although mostly attributed to the reduced weight, it proved a live axle setup can handle.

        Personally, it wouldn’t bother me at all if they kept the 8.8 back there as I can deal with the ride quality tradeoffs in echange for the durability, simplicity and performance at the strip.

      • 0 avatar
        Fordson

        That’s me. The long-term car fleet is interesting, but they are for the most part j-school hipsters over there.

  • avatar
    xflowgolf

    I know Derek is just repeating information as he’s heard, but I have to imagine the EcoBoost 2.3T will be spec’d at a much higher output than 270HP. The current “base” V6 is 305HP, and Ford always markets the EcoBoost as an upgrade… they can’t market (and charge more for) the Ecoboost as an upgrade with a lower output than the base motor. I think R&T is closer on their estimate, and/or it will make similar numbers in both the Focus RS & the SVO. I don’t think there’s fears of “stepping on the toes of the RS” as these are totally different platforms. I’ve very curious to see how this SVO shapes up.

  • avatar
    IHateCars

    Totally unrelated to the topic at hand, but Steve McQueen’s Baja prepped Chev C-10 shown in the R&T link is all sorts of awesome! Up for auction too!

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    So Ford is seriously trying to market the Mustang in Europe and is cripping its performance stats to do so.

    No one wants to buy an American muscle car in Europe. It makes zero sense to those diesel powered microcar driving cheese eating surrender monkeys.

    They will sell a few dozen, maybe a hundred.

    • 0 avatar
      JuniperBug

      So you go to Europe a lot, huh?

      I see a fair number of Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers, Chrysler 300s and other American cars around Frankfurt when I’m there (several times a month). I never saw a greater concentration of Vipers than the summer I lived in Switzerland.

      As to the genius further up who mentioned that the Europeans don’t have money: I refer you again to the Germans and the Swiss, but then that’s a market of “only” about 90 million or so. I understand that the Scandinavians don’t do too badly, either.

  • avatar
    maxxcool7421

    270hp? hmmm mazda gets 300hp and it still has room after that. sounds like a poor job of ”binning” the power for sales.

    On the other hand tuners will *LOVE* that thing.

    One question though that might make a big difference… inter-cooler or no inter-cooler ? I can see that accounting for a 40hp deficit.

    • 0 avatar
      Power6

      Why is everybody focusing on 270? Seems to be based on the 2.0 Ecoboost, have to imagine the 2.3 is going to bring more power.

      Intercooler is required equipment, last non-intercooled turbo I can recall would be the Pontiac Sunbird in ’90 would any mfr make a non-intercooled turbo today?

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Peak HP alone, unfortunately, is what sells cars. I’d take less peak HP any day for a broad increase in torque down low. Of course with a boosted car, you can have both, but at the expense of durability and fuel economy.

    • 0 avatar
      Fordson

      Mazda gets 300 hp? MS3 is rated at 263, no?

      I would think a 2.3 Ecoboost would be around 300 hp.

      Torque would be well over 300 – say 310, starting at 1500 rpm. The V6 is making what – 260-270? At over 4k rpm? The Ecoboost would be quite a bit faster than a V6.

      And yes – all intercooled, of course.

  • avatar
    Loser

    Just wondering if the 6.2 will fit into this new Mustang.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    The renderings are probably accurate, but in this form won’t show the proportion and dynamic of the design. I’m betting it’s going to be spectactular in 3D sitting right in front of you. Equally important, my impression of the camo-ed mules is a much smaller car.


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