1 2
thatsnowinnebago
thatsnowinnebago Dork
12/27/09 9:22 p.m.

http://jalopnik.com/5434086/2011-ford-mustang-gt-the-50-is-back?skyline=true&s=i

Oh yes, the 5.0 is back.

neon4891
neon4891 SuperDork
12/27/09 9:32 p.m.

Time for a new car in 2 years. 412HP, the Camaro can suck on that.

MrJoshua
MrJoshua SuperDork
12/27/09 9:46 p.m.

Ooooh thats pretty.

Drewsifer
Drewsifer Reader
12/27/09 9:49 p.m.

This can only get better from here. High performance pony cars? Yes please!

Salanis
Salanis SuperDork
12/27/09 10:04 p.m.

I never thought I'd say this about a Mustang but... Me Likey.

The_Jed
The_Jed Reader
12/27/09 10:16 p.m.

Bore?...Stroke?...Rod length?...Cam lift and duration?...Compression ratio?...

I need internal dimensions!!!

Very nice, even with the lack of specs in the press release me likey too!

EricM
EricM Dork
12/27/09 10:23 p.m.

LSx is still the answer.

The_Jed
The_Jed Reader
12/27/09 10:35 p.m.

I was going to shout "BLASPHEMY!" but then I did a bit of resarch on the LSX and yeah that's a well designed block; six bolt mains, six head bolts per cylinder, siamese bores and it's rated for up to 2,500 hp. I was unaware that the lsx block was cast iron, I thought all LS family engines were aluminum.

joey48442
joey48442 SuperDork
12/27/09 11:05 p.m.
The_Jed wrote: I was going to shout "BLASPHEMY!" but then I did a bit of resarch on the LSX and yeah that's a well designed block; six bolt mains, six head bolts per cylinder, siamese bores and it's rated for up to 2,500 hp. I was unaware that the lsx block was cast iron, I thought all LS family engines were aluminum.

Some LS are iron, some are aluminium.

Joey

JeepinMatt
JeepinMatt Reader
12/27/09 11:45 p.m.

So what's the deal on this MT-82 manual vs the TR-6060?

Btw, the 5.0L engine is a beautiful engine.

maroon92
maroon92 SuperDork
12/28/09 12:37 a.m.

I am in love, and I might be able to afford one by then! Penny saving begins NOW.

I have been a fan of the 5.0 since I started liking Mustangs.

bang for the buck motorsports is coming back baby!

Brust
Brust Reader
12/28/09 12:41 a.m.

Funny, it looks like a Yamaha SHO engine at the intake.

Twin_Cam
Twin_Cam Dork
12/28/09 7:07 a.m.
Brust wrote: Funny, it looks like a Yamaha SHO engine at the intake.

Exactly what I was thinking.

ignorant
ignorant SuperDork
12/28/09 7:09 a.m.

engine cool..

car m3h.

I just don't like the new looks. I liked the 2005 better.

Rza
Rza HalfDork
12/28/09 7:20 a.m.

Why wait? The 5.0 "Cammer" has been out for a couples years now I think. The price tag seems excessive; so the one that comes in the mustang probably wont have all the goodies.

mad_machine
mad_machine SuperDork
12/28/09 8:17 a.m.

what is not to like? Some polish on those intake runners and it would be a stunner

dyintorace
dyintorace Dork
12/28/09 9:17 a.m.
ignorant wrote: engine cool.. car m3h. I just don't like the new looks. I liked the 2005 better.

Couldn't agree more. The new body (2010 model?) is a huge step backwards. The previous car looked great.

pinchvalve
pinchvalve SuperDork
12/28/09 9:23 a.m.

5.0 on the Fender of a Mustang GT just feels right.

davidjs
davidjs New Reader
12/28/09 10:47 a.m.
dyintorace wrote:
ignorant wrote: engine cool.. car m3h. I just don't like the new looks. I liked the 2005 better.
Couldn't agree more. The new body (2010 model?) is a huge step backwards. The previous car looked great.

It looks like they left the clay out in the sun and it melted a little bit... (guess they had to bring it closer to "blob" styling)

Woody
Woody SuperDork
12/28/09 11:47 a.m.

Is it just a coincidence that the "new" engine displaces five liters? I doubt it. I suspect that they said, "We want to use the 5.0 badges again. Design us an engine that fits".

Gearheadotaku
Gearheadotaku HalfDork
12/28/09 11:56 a.m.

The '10 looks good from the front and sides, but the back is a disaster. Camaro SS still has more power (422 vs.412) and the pushrod valve trian will be easier to service. Now its a fair fight though. The V-6 car has some good upgrades too.

GlennS
GlennS Dork
12/28/09 12:39 p.m.
Woody wrote: Is it just a coincidence that the "new" engine displaces five liters? I doubt it. I suspect that they said, "We want to use the 5.0 badges again. Design us an engine that fits".

Yes, and the engineers wanted it with a ragtop that goes down so their hair can flow. And when driving said car there should be girlies on standby just waiting to say hi.

But would they stop?

No they would just drive by

dung dung dung duh duh dung dung

Matt B
Matt B Reader
12/28/09 1:38 p.m.

In reply to GlennS:

Bwwwaaahahahahaha

tuna55
tuna55 Reader
12/28/09 1:56 p.m.
joey48442 wrote:
The_Jed wrote: I was going to shout "BLASPHEMY!" but then I did a bit of resarch on the LSX and yeah that's a well designed block; six bolt mains, six head bolts per cylinder, siamese bores and it's rated for up to 2,500 hp. I was unaware that the lsx block was cast iron, I thought all LS family engines were aluminum.
Some LS are iron, some are aluminium. Joey

It gets confusing because there is a block available from GM for racing called the LSX. We typically say LSx (note case) to mean all Gen III and IV chevy V8s, which, as you pointed out, come in both aluminum and iron. The LSX block is only iron.

John Brown
John Brown SuperDork
12/28/09 3:11 p.m.

5.0L FRPP shipping weight: 534.00 lbs

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
Mq4QLibQTbbuOwbC8KZMnnEvCFiDYnfVqbwuZcFfxe1uqQhbjISrbZ1a8yttFdYc