Report: S650 Mustang To Use Unique Platform with CD6 Architectural Bits

[newmoon]

I am no longer in touch with anyone in the industry or media... BUT...

The S650 was developed along side the S550. To be honest, the S650 is simply all the lightweighting and improvements the S550’s target price couldn’t support pre-2015.

The future of the Mustang will likely be based on 3 separate wheelbases. The GT350 (yes it’s coming back) and GT500 will likely be a shortened 105” wheelbase to support a REAL 2-seat design.

the base Mustang, EB, GT and Special Editions will remain on the 107” wheelbase.

The last option will support Electic and Gas 4-door and 5-door Crossover options on a 110-112” wheelbase.

The GT350 has a 3 year grace period for production Motorsport. I expect the GT350 to release with the S650 for 2022-‘23.

There is a big OHV V8 headed for the Mustang in 2022. It could be headed the Mustang XL or the 111 inch model, perhaps a HiPo version of the XL?

That’s all I have.

Interesting news on the Next Gen GT350, keep us informed.

Sponsored

 

[MikeyV]

There is a 2 seat Mustang today, and through the end of the year. Called the GT350R.

If you want a lighter Mustang, one of the easier ways to get it is a smaller Mustang. Just see some of the Original vs current GT350 photos to see how much bigger the modern car is.

Thanks for being "that guy" you dunce.
If you take the rear seats out of a 4 seat car it's still a 4 seat car with the seats taken out.
A corvette is a two seat car. Understand?

Especially silly comment since we were discussing altering the wheelbase to create an actual 2 seat car. Which will never happen.

 

[vbondjr1]

The CD6 chassis would have made an amazing Ford Fusion or Falcon global performance sedan. Seeing that the Taurus SHO didn't take away sales from the Mustang, the Fusion/Falcon performance sedan could have been introduced as an ecoboost-only performance vehicle. Ford has several ecoboost powertrains that could have, and would have worked on this platform the 350hp/350tq 2.3L Ecoboost, the 375hp/400tq 2.7L Ecoboost, the 400hp/415tq 3.0L Ecoboost, the 450hp/510tq 3.5L Ecoboost, the 430/570tq 3.5L Powerboost Hybrid, the 494hp/630tq 3.0L ecoboost hybrid and the 660hp/550tq 3.5L supercar Ecoboost engine. A RWD based AWD sedan with E-Twinster differentials double wishbone front and rear suspensions magnetic ride, Brembo brakes, Recaro seats, aggressive exteriors, comfortable/sporty rides and all of that would have made for a hell of a performance sedan that wouldn't only rival vehicles like the Charger and Challenger, but the new Acura TLX, BMW 5-series (granted slightly larger) Audi A5 and Mercedes E class. Figure in ST, GT, RS, XR6, XR6-T, Boss and Cobra trim levels, the car would be a serious performance machine and hopefully relatively affordable, especially to the people that want an American Performance sedan besides the Charger and don't really want a V8 put want a lot of power and performance. What would be even nicer would be ford Ford Performance, Mountune and Roush to offer upgrades for these vehicles.

 

[Norm Peterson]

The CD6 chassis would have made an amazing Ford Fusion or Falcon global performance sedan.

I think what you'd really have gotten would be a Fusion/Falcon that's a lot more CUV than sedan. Like we really need any more of those things . . .

The average sedan buyer - at the Fusion/Maxims/Camry level anyway - is sure to be content with 300-ish HP, which is readily available from 3.5L or so NA.


Norm

 

[Big Boss]

I don't see the 6.8 going into the Mustang or F-150. The 7.3 was designed as an alternative for a diesel in the Super Duty. This rumored 6.8 is a variant based off of the 7.3

Now I know Ford could easily make some minor changes and have it suit the needs of the F-150 or Mustang but that is where I see the problem. This engine doesn't serve a need in the F-150. F-150 has 7 engine choices, V-6, 2.7, 3.5, 3.5HO, 5.0 the Diesel and now the 3.5 hybrid. I don't see where the 6.8 fits in mostly because if you need a workhorse engine like it would be, you probably need a heavier duty truck than a 150.

Unless they drop the 5.0 altogether. Then it fills a void and serves a purpose.

 

[ColoradoGT]

I don't see the 6.8 going into the Mustang or F-150. The 7.3 was designed as an alternative for a diesel in the Super Duty. This rumored 6.8 is a variant based off of the 7.3

Now I know Ford could easily make some minor changes and have it suit the needs of the F-150 or Mustang but that is where I see the problem. This engine doesn't serve a need in the F-150. F-150 has 7 engine choices, V-6, 2.7, 3.5, 3.5HO, 5.0 the Diesel and now the 3.5 hybrid. I don't see where the 6.8 fits in mostly because if you need a workhorse engine like it would be, you probably need a heavier duty truck than a 150.

Unless they drop the 5.0 altogether. Then it fills a void and serves a purpose.

My GM and a dealer owner in another state went to a Ford meeting. That 6.8 nat. asp. engine is a GO for a "special Mustang" for 2022. Over 600 hp. It will also be used in a version of the F150. The "special Mustang" at this point...we don't know yet. He was very definitive in his info. He asked me "if I heard anything about it?"....and I said...only rumors. That's when he clarified what he knew. And, it's not a replacement for the Coyote.

 

[fpvfan1]

I think what you'd really have gotten would be a Fusion/Falcon that's a lot more CUV than sedan. Like we really need any more of those things . . .

The average sedan buyer - at the Fusion/Maxims/Camry level anyway - is sure to be content with 300-ish HP, which is readily available from 3.5L or so NA.


Norm

True, it's nice to dream though

 

[EcoVert]

I think all this 6.8L engine is about as credible as the supposed 4.8L from a few years ago all just smoke and mirror's and it ain't going to happen.

 

[S550Boss]

With the election decided today, there won't be any bigger engines for the Mustang... the Federal standards will stay on their original path of major increases in mileage and decreases in emissions, if they are not accelerated.
The only way the 6.8 could fit into this reality is if it rev'd slower and lower to meet emissions regs. In other words, boring. It might make a big number, but that doesn't mean it would be a pleasure to drive. Remember that when Ford introduced the 4.6 DOHC in the Mustang for '96, they said that the engine itself contributes to the pleasure of the drive, revving much higher and across a wider band. They had press marketing to that effect. I wasn't registered in the press then to try it in person at a launch event, but I did trade my own '94 Cobra in on a '96 Cobra (2nd or 3rd delivered in the state) and the difference was astounding on the road and on the track. And not just from the increase in HP (235 to 305), but also the extra 1000 RPM at the top and what that meant in the turns and on the big straight on my favorite track. That extra RPM literally left ye olde Cobra in the dust. It was like passing Miatas.
A 6.8 would be a backwards step... especially since the Coyote still has potential development. Development which the F-150 would fund, as it has funded the Coyote from the start, and which could include variable cam lift and cylinder shut-off. These were likely on the 4.8 which didn't get funded. If anybody in the F-150 Team even cares, since the Coyote there is declining even more in popularity.
Besides, the best way to get to the best of all worlds, better performance, better mileage and lower emissions, is to significantly reduce weight. And how that could be accomplished in a car that is the same exact structure as the S550 - and with a very low priority for capital spending - remains to be seen. CD6 addresses weight reduction very nicely... but... oh well, dead or put off in budget cuts.
And the Union might well have been quoted out of context.. the 6.8 might be nothing more than a crate engine in regards to the Mustang. And even that doesn't mean that an owner can put it into a current Mustang... in most States the emissions laws would prohibit that.... except maybe in some cases where a complete crate engine, transmission, fuel system, and all the accompanying electronics are certified as a package. For very very big $$$.

 

[BoostRabbitGT]

I'm definitely not an engine expert. But considering how far four-cylinder engines have come as far as fuel efficiency goes, why haven't we seen the same for six- or eight- cylinder engines (NA or turbo)? Does it just come down to emissions output or is there more to it than I think there is to it?

 

[Mikthehun1]

I'm definitely not an engine expert. But considering how far four-cylinder engines have come as far as fuel efficiency goes, why haven't we seen the same for six- or eight- cylinder engines (NA or turbo)? Does it just come down to emissions output or is there more to it than I think there is to it?

What's the highest displacement 4-cylinder you can think of off the top if your head? Then, think of the highest displacement v6 and v8. I think the answer will become clear to you.

 

[BoostRabbitGT]

What's the highest displacement 4-cylinder you can think of off the top if your head? Then, think of the highest displacement v6 and v8. I think the answer will become clear to you.

Math was my worst subject in school. However, after looking at an animated diagram showing a complete cycle of a four-cylinder four-stroke engine, I think I have an idea of what the answer is.

Maybe someday we can have a 4-cylinder engine (NA or turbo) in a Mustang that sounds as good as a stock WRX STI? (I know asking for a 4- to sound like an 8- is asking way too much.)

 

[Mikthehun1]

Math was my worst subject in school. However, after looking at an animated diagram showing a complete cycle of a four-cylinder four-stroke engine, I think I have an idea of what the answer is.

Maybe someday we can have a 4-cylinder engine (NA or turbo) in a Mustang that sounds as good as a stock WRX STI? (I know asking for a 4- to sound like an 8- is asking way too much.)

The WRX 4-cylinder is a boxer, not an inline like the Ford motors. They will always sound different because of the different configuration.

The point I was trying to make is that an inline-4 can only get so big. This is due to balancing and smoothness issues. Smaller displacement motors will naturally burn less fuel and produce lower emissions. The turbocharging myth is the loophole automakers have jumped through. Yes, you can get good power from a low displacement 4-cyl turbo. You can also get good fuel economy. The dirty secret is, you can't have both at the same time. When that turbo motor is producing 3 or 4 hundred horsepower, it's using just as much fuel as it's larger NA counterparts. Conversely, when it is sipping gas on the highway running at sub-1000 rpms in a high overdrive gear, it isn't making any power. At that point, it's the transmission that's getting good fuel economy.

 

[Twin Turbo]

My GM and a dealer owner in another state went to a Ford meeting. That 6.8 nat. asp. engine is a GO for a "special Mustang" for 2022. Over 600 hp. It will also be used in a version of the F150. The "special Mustang" at this point...we don't know yet. He was very definitive in his info. He asked me "if I heard anything about it?"....and I said...only rumors. That's when he clarified what he knew. And, it's not a replacement for the Coyote.

If......if the 6.8 is going into a Mustang SE, it'll be for the S650. No way we're getting any more models on S550 as it only has two more model years to run ('21 & '22). So, '23MY would be the earliest we'd see the 6.8 and even then, it's a little unusual to have an SE available in the first model year of a new platform (although the the GT350 did debut for the '15 model year, although only 137 were made to match the original number of '65 GT350s).

 

[Norm Peterson]

Maybe someday we can have a 4-cylinder engine (NA or turbo) in a Mustang that sounds as good as a stock WRX STI? (I know asking for a 4- to sound like an 8- is asking way too much.)

Exhaust sound character is very much a function of firing order, bank angle (if a V type engine which includes horizontally opposed engines where the bank angle is 180°), and how the pipes are merged. Making the exhaust either louder or deeper with a less restrictive exhaust system doesn't change this.

If you're old enough to remember when early VW Beetles were common you'll immediately pick up the same kind of sound coming out of just about any horizontally-opposed four (and trust me, the guys over on the Subie forums absolutely hate hearing that comparison). The STi gets a deeper tone, but the same uneven rattly rumble is present. I used to own a Subaru Legacy equipped with a slightly detuned version of the STi's EJ engine, and there was a certain combination of rpms and throttle that I'd go out of my way to avoid using for exactly that reason.


Norm

Sponsored