S650 cancelled?

[5.0 435]

You don't need to "uprate" the 3.7 to enjoy it. They are better engines than many of the boat anchor 4.6 engines Ford made. Lighter and more powerful with a great high revving character to them. I owned a 2011 V6 Mustang and remember breaking the tires loose at ~55 mph shifting into 3rd gear - that car was lots of fun to drive.

Boat anchor 4.6 are you kidding me. You keep showing your lack of knowledge. Those 3V engines can handle a lot of modifications and boost. All you praise is your tech pack 5.2. During the mustang challenge that ran for 3 years ....those engines stood the test of time on the track.

Sponsored

 

[Eagle-1]

My opinion

So i read the entire article about 3x over and unless more sources come out verifying this information in the coming months I think its just a bunch of hogwash. Ok so they heard info that s650 is being cancelled but then they fail to follow that up with what Ford will then proceed to do. Then a couple bits of info is a bit off such as Ford not having a modular platform...ummmm isn't cd6 supposed to fulfill that? Also it would run counter to what Jim Hackett is trying to do with bringing technology(electrification/hybrid) forward with all their vehicles, something that a modified s550 would have a hard time doing.

Truthfully I've never heard of this website and while its possible that their sources are correct, it just seems like conjecture sprinkled with something that they heard. Until then i'am going to pour a bucket of Morton salt on this article.

 

[Norm Peterson]

You don't need to "uprate" the 3.7 to enjoy it. They are better engines than many of the boat anchor 4.6 engines Ford made. Lighter and more powerful with a great high revving character to them. I owned a 2011 V6 Mustang and remember breaking the tires loose at ~55 mph shifting into 3rd gear - that car was lots of fun to drive.

I wasn't looking for much, just somewhere in the 340 - 350 HP range (normally aspirated), which would probably be enough to not give anything up to my 4.6L V8 and its 40 or 50 ft*lbs more torque in the midrange.

I think in the right hands and with a little basic preparation it'd make for a surprisingly good HPDE car, especially after people picked up on the exhaust note or did a quick cylinder count while you were checking the oil level between sessions. That'd make it a good car in my book even though it wouldn't be at the top of the heap power-wise.

FWIW, I even like the sixxer exhaust sound as long as the transmission gear ratios are spaced closely enough to play an easy tune going up and down through the gears.


Norm

 

[jake_zx2]

I'm curious, where is there any information confirming this?

From everything I can tell, the S550 does quite fine when equipped with similar tires and suspension components (GT350) compared to the Alpha.

What this shows is the chassis are more comparable...especially considering how well the reviews were for the GT350.

As for the camaros longer wheelbase and overhang, you get a smaller trunk and less interior cabin room to go with it. :headbonk:

According to this (link at the end) website, which claims to take all it's numbers from credible sources, the torsional rigidity of a Cadillac ATS is 29,000 NM/Deg. now, I know it's a different car, but it's the same chassis, and I would imagine that since the Camaro is a 2 door sports car, it would be even more rigid. But for the sake of pure numbers, we'll stick with 29,000 NM/Deg. The same listing does not have a figure for the S550, however it does have a figure for an S197 coupe, which comes in at 21,000 NM/Deg.
http://youwheel.com/home/2016/06/20/car-body-torsional-rigidity-a-comprehensive-list/

Now, using the information from this (link at the end) forum post, Ford reports a 19% increase in Torsional rigidity over the outgoing chassis. Therefore, 21,000 + (21,000 x .19) = 25,000 NM/Deg vs the ATS's 29,000. Now, converting NM to FREEDOM UNITS (Go America), that's a 2950.25 ft/lb per degree difference between the 2, with the ATS having the advantage. That's a pretty significant advantage. https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15917

Like I said in a previous post, I'd say that GM has the advantage when it comes to chassis development just because they got to design a clean slate car using modern technology. However, I think Ford is better at working with what they're given, which is why Mustangs have the ability to match and even surpass the superior chassis car. I think that if Ford engineers were given the opportunity to pump out an all new chassis, they would be able to come up with something truly spectacular.

Cheers! :cheers:

 

[Hack]

Boat anchor 4.6 are you kidding me. You keep showing your lack of knowledge. Those 3V engines can handle a lot of modifications and boost. All you praise is your tech pack 5.2. During the mustang challenge that ran for 3 years ....those engines stood the test of time on the track.

Some of the 4.6 engines are ok and yes some can handle boost. I stand by my characterization of many Ford builds of the 4.6 as boat anchors though. Many, many 4.6 engines made less HP than the 3.7 V6 does. You can feel free to love a 215 hp 4.6 liter engine and I will continue to call it a boat anchor. Heck - even the 2010 Mustang GT 4.6 only made 315 hp after all those years of "development". The 4.6 easily could have made over 400 hp. It really irritates me that Ford didn't make a better engine for the Mustang through all those years.

I wasn't looking for much, just somewhere in the 340 - 350 HP range (normally aspirated), which would probably be enough to not give anything up to my 4.6L V8 and its 40 or 50 ft*lbs more torque in the midrange.

I think in the right hands and with a little basic preparation it'd make for a surprisingly good HPDE car, especially after people picked up on the exhaust note or did a quick cylinder count while you were checking the oil level between sessions. That'd make it a good car in my book even though it wouldn't be at the top of the heap power-wise.

FWIW, I even like the sixxer exhaust sound as long as the transmission gear ratios are spaced closely enough to play an easy tune going up and down through the gears.


Norm

I get it - every engine I've ever owned I would like to have it make a little more power. The 3.7 V6 Mustang would probably be best at smaller tracks, but I do think it's not a bad engine.

I typically don't like the sound of V6s, but I don't remember it bothering me back when I had it.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Thanks for the links, jake.

I think I have the one with the list of torsional stiffnesses, or at least an earlier version that has most of them. It does look familiar.

Increasing torsional stiffness gradually becomes a game of diminishing returns, where torsional "flexing" in the chassis becomes "noise" in comparison to rotations in roll coming from the suspensions' roll stiffnesses not being infinite (and tires not being infinitely rigid vertically either). IOW, if the end to end chassis torsional stiffness is 18,000 ft*lbs/° but the suspension stiffnesses are only something like 1800 ft*lbs/°, most of any rotation coming from torsional moments in the chassis is going to come out in the suspensions. Stiffening the chassis to 21,000 ft*lbs/° isn't going to decrease the amount of chassis twist all that much, when it's not much to begin with. If it matters, I've included the effects of chassis, suspension, and tire stiffnesses into a lateral load transfer distribution spreadsheet.


Norm

 

[Fatguy]

One thing to remember comparing old and new cars is the times they ran in.

My 5.0 day’s were fox body cars with 225 horsepower though that was advertised. But back in the 1980s that car was the fastest car on the street except for the Corvette. The 3.7 may make more horsepower as advertised (actually we worked the 5.0 for 286 actual horsepower but I forgot how we did it) but it runs in a time where all sorts of cars are faster than it is. Still, I must admit this is the fastest Mustang I have ever owned. 157mph vs.142mph for the 5.0 is pretty definitive that the 3.7 is faster. The iron block V8s were all boat anchors as they were heavy and understeered the cars badly. The 3.7 is a better balanced car.

It’s telling the current 5.0 owners don’t seem to push their cars for true top speed. Even the 3.7 guys do it and post on-line. Me thinks sports cars are faster than the abilities of the current drivers which given computerized driving makes them inferior to the older drivers but those are just the times and not the absolute abilities of the drivers. Current day performance figures are just conversational bragging rights for 95% of you. For those that can really push your cars I feel sorry for you. The age of really having fun with a fast car has passed us by.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I stand by my characterization of many Ford builds of the 4.6 as boat anchors though. Many, many 4.6 engines made less HP than the 3.7 V6 does. You can feel free to love a 215 hp 4.6 liter engine and I will continue to call it a boat anchor. Heck - even the 2010 Mustang GT 4.6 only made 315 hp after all those years of "development". The 4.6 easily could have made over 400 hp. It really irritates me that Ford didn't make a better engine for the Mustang through all those years.

I agree that the iron-block 2-valve 4.6's are boat anchors (I wouldn't own one of those things either), and even the iron-block 4-valve motors weren't nearly as good as they could/should have been. But you should include the all-aluminum 3-valve 4.6 engines in your "OK" category even though 380-ish HP should have been easy.

315 HP is enough to make for a decent track day ride if you've got a good enough chassis. You do give up some to more powerful cars down the straights, but then again there's going to be somebody whose car pulls harder than yours down the straights at almost any power level that's still realistically streetable.

I typically don't like the sound of V6s, but I don't remember it bothering me back when I had it.

Maybe it's an acquired taste, or maybe it's something you're more apt to come by if you're mostly about chassis and cornering rather than big power and straight lines. I think the sweetest exhaust note on any car I've yet owned came from the 2.5L V6 in the Mazda 626 we used to own, once I opened the exhaust up a little with some turbo-style muffler. That was genuinely a 7500 rpm engine.

I'd love to put a 340-HP 3.7 into a Miata . . . let the track day fun and surprises begin!


Norm

 

[Fatguy]

I agree that the iron-block 2-valve 4.6's are boat anchors (I wouldn't own one of those things either), and even the iron-block 4-valve motors weren't nearly as good as they could/should have been. But you should include the all-aluminum 3-valve 4.6 engines in your "OK" category even though 380-ish HP should have been easy.

315 HP is enough to make for a decent track day ride if you've got a good enough chassis. You do give up some to more powerful cars down the straights, but then again there's going to be somebody whose car pulls harder than yours down the straights at almost any power level that's still realistically streetable.


Maybe it's an acquired taste, or maybe it's something you're more apt to come by if you're mostly about chassis and cornering rather than big power and straight lines. I think the sweetest exhaust note on any car I've yet owned came from the 2.5L V6 in the Mazda 626 we used to own, once I opened the exhaust up a little with some turbo-style muffler. That was genuinely a 7500 rpm engine.

I'd love to put a 340-HP 3.7 into a Miata . . . let the track day fun and surprises begin!


Norm

Hi Norm. Any decent tune will take the 3.7 at 308 (stock dynotested) to 340 with good gas. No other modifications needed. As I see it, there isn’t even an argument here. The car is already there.

 

[Vernichtung]

According to this (link at the end) website, which claims to take all it's numbers from credible sources, the torsional rigidity of a Cadillac ATS is 29,000 NM/Deg. now, I know it's a different car, but it's the same chassis, and I would imagine that since the Camaro is a 2 door sports car, it would be even more rigid. But for the sake of pure numbers, we'll stick with 29,000 NM/Deg. The same listing does not have a figure for the S550, however it does have a figure for an S197 coupe, which comes in at 21,000 NM/Deg.
http://youwheel.com/home/2016/06/20/car-body-torsional-rigidity-a-comprehensive-list/

Now, using the information from this (link at the end) forum post, Ford reports a 19% increase in Torsional rigidity over the outgoing chassis. Therefore, 21,000 + (21,000 x .19) = 25,000 NM/Deg vs the ATS's 29,000. Now, converting NM to FREEDOM UNITS (Go America), that's a 2950.25 ft/lb per degree difference between the 2, with the ATS having the advantage. That's a pretty significant advantage. https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15917

Like I said in a previous post, I'd say that GM has the advantage when it comes to chassis development just because they got to design a clean slate car using modern technology. However, I think Ford is better at working with what they're given, which is why Mustangs have the ability to match and even surpass the superior chassis car. I think that if Ford engineers were given the opportunity to pump out an all new chassis, they would be able to come up with something truly spectacular.

Cheers! :cheers:

Thanks for the links! I will add that the 19% improvement in torsional rigidity figure was for the S550 convertible; the link shows a 31% improvement for the S550 coupe when compared to the outgoing S197 model.

 

[Hack]

I agree that the iron-block 2-valve 4.6's are boat anchors (I wouldn't own one of those things either), and even the iron-block 4-valve motors weren't nearly as good as they could/should have been. But you should include the all-aluminum 3-valve 4.6 engines in your "OK" category even though 380-ish HP should have been easy.

315 HP is enough to make for a decent track day ride if you've got a good enough chassis. You do give up some to more powerful cars down the straights, but then again there's going to be somebody whose car pulls harder than yours down the straights at almost any power level that's still realistically streetable.

I remember owning 210 HP Mustang GTs and thinking they were fast back in the day, so maybe I shouldn't talk too much about boat anchors. :cheers:

I just have always felt that all the additional complexity of the 4.6 could/should have been utilized better. I did feel the same way about the original 302s, though. It wouldn't have been difficult for Ford to make 400+ hp from the old small block Ford engine, either.

I'd love to put a 340-HP 3.7 into a Miata . . . let the track day fun and surprises begin!
Norm

That would be a fun track car.

 

[Fatguy]

That would be a fun track car.

Sadly hardy anyone races anymore. One guy I worked with would regularly place in events that required sponsorship. I asked him if he still has the car and if he ever races it. He still has it but does not bother anymore. In the six months I have had this little Mustang I can count 1 5.0 and 1 Challenger that you could actually hear the exhaust. I still to this day have not seen anyone other than myself take a corner that would spill a Starbucks mocha! The S650 built as some of you enthusiasts would like would be a financial nightmare for Ford. Screw the extra rigidity and horsepower and concentrate on a cheap 5.0 at 25 grand USD without all the bells and whistles. That is the modern day converted price of what I paid in the 1980s. And just keep it as a North American muscle car and not a sports car. That was what a Mustang was. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. But Ford wants to fix it. :frusty:

 

[DickR]

Speaking of boat anchors are any of you old enough to have owned boat anchor engines in the 60's and early 70's? My first Mustang was a new 69 with the Windsor 351 4 barrel. It was considered light compared to the big block 390 and 428.

C&D had a bunch of Mustang road tests on their website a few years ago. Here is a snip from a 69 Mach 1 428 Cobra Jet road test.

[/url][/IMG]

 

[DickR]

And here is a 71 Boss 351

[/url][/IMG]

 

[Fatguy]

I note those cars are actually lighter than the 2018 5.0 Mustang. Progress! :lol:

Many of those cars got smashed up running off the road in a corner. It was claimed that you could use the power to break the rear end loose and balance the car. But usually it would just just send you into the weeds faster. Many of those cars idled like shit. I remember that - carborators.

Sponsored