When did mustang get the 5L?

[PuntyMario]

Ok is someone dicking around with the mustang wiki page because i could have sworn 5L coyote engines were introduced 2009 or 2010 not 2011. Eveything regarding the 2005 generation feels like it was edited recently because everything feels out of place. Am i wrong? I kept remembering that the engine change came with the updated look in 09.

[Blown3.8]

11 was the year for the coyote.

[PuntyMario]

My mind has obviously been playing tricks on me then

[WPG_Merc]

Ford is also planning a diesel & Hybrid powered Mustangs for 2015
& developing 10 speed automatics :eek::eek:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/think-four-cylinder-mustangs-sacrilege-wait-diesel-hybrid-variants/#!AUyVS

[ChiTownMaraud3r]

My buddy was pretty pissed when he bought a 2010 GT with the 4.6 when he could have waited a year for the 5.0.

[WPG_Merc]

The new stags are not cheap anymore. :eek::eek:

[Joe Walsh]

My buddy was pretty pissed when he bought a 2010 GT with the 4.6 when he could have waited a year for the 5.0.

He should have been reading about the upcoming Coyote engine....it was no secret.

I too would be really pissed if I spent all that money on a 3 valve 4.6,
then miss out on:

100 more HP
+ 65 Ft-Lbs TRQ
and better gas mileage....:mad2:

[ChiTownMaraud3r]

He should have been reading about the upcoming Coyote engine....it was no secret.

I too would be really pissed if I spent all that money on a 3 valve 4.6,
then miss out on:

100 more HP
+ 65 Ft-Lbs TRQ
and better gas mileage....:mad2:

That's what I said, I guess he wasn't informed and purchased one of the first black 2010s the dealer by him received back in '09.

[PuntyMario]

Im liking that it seems that mustangs are gonna have tons of engine options like back in the 60s but i say the ecoboost is a load of flaming turds. This need for eco muscle cars blows my mind. If youre eco oriented you are buying the wrong car. Its like looking for a v6 aventador because you wanna watch your gas consumption. Get real.

[mrjones]

My mind has obviously been playing tricks on me then

It has, the new body style came out for the 10 model year, not the 09. The 05-09 were the same. You can tell the 09s by the 'horseshoe' anniversary emblems.

[RR|Suki]

Im liking that it seems that mustangs are gonna have tons of engine options like back in the 60s but i say the ecoboost is a load of flaming turds. This need for eco muscle cars blows my mind. If youre eco oriented you are buying the wrong car. Its like looking for a v6 aventador because you wanna watch your gas consumption. Get real.

You do realize that the Mustang has always had small eco engine options from the beginning? the I-6 in the first one made a whole 100hp... the eco boost looks like it's going to make somewhere around 350.

The small engine models sell the volume so that they can continue making the V8s.

Get real :rofl:

[SpartaPerformance]

You do realize that the Mustang has always had small eco engine options from the beginning? the I-6 in the first one made a whole 100hp... the eco boost looks like it's going to make somewhere around 350.

The small engine models sell the volume so that they can continue making the V8s.

Get real :rofl:

Nailed it!! Mustang is not a "Muscle" car, it's a Pony car, it's supposed to have a wide variety of engines to make it appealing to a broad market. Only then is it profitable enough to continue production. EcoBoost in every variation I've seen so far is fantastic.

[jsignorelli]

The news about the 5.0 return was in the press for almost 6 months, if not longer. The 2010 was actually a short production year knowing that the public was waiting for the new engine to preview.

[License2Bill]

Im liking that it seems that mustangs are gonna have tons of engine options like back in the 60s but i say the ecoboost is a load of flaming turds. This need for eco muscle cars blows my mind. If youre eco oriented you are buying the wrong car. Its like looking for a v6 aventador because you wanna watch your gas consumption. Get real.


The original 2.3 L Turbo SVO Mustangs were faster than the 5.0s stock vs stock. I'm sure this ecoboost will be no laughing matter either.

[Joe Walsh]

The original 2.3 L Turbo SVO Mustangs were faster than the 5.0s stock vs stock. I'm sure this ecoboost will be no laughing matter either.

Not so sure about that...The magazines tested the '85 5.0L GT and it ran high 14 secs in the 1/4 mile.
That is exactly what my bone stock '85 GT ran: 14.92s to 14.96s.

The SVO Mustang tested by the magazines ran low 15 seconds in the 1/4 mile.

I'd still love to own an 85-1/2 SVO Mustang!

[License2Bill]

Not so sure about that...The magazines tested the '85 5.0L GT and it ran high 14 secs in the 1/4 mile.
That is exactly what my bone stock '85 GT ran: 14.92s to 14.96s.

The SVO Mustang tested by the magazines ran low 15 seconds in the 1/4 mile.

I'd still love to own an 85-1/2 SVO Mustang!

My mistake. Still a 4 cylinder being almost as fast as a v8 with over twice the displacement would make for a fun time

Sent from 1984

[JBeezy]

My buddy has a '85.5 SVO. He rebuilt the engine and put an upgraded turbo and an aluminum head on it. Head alone was $1500. We drove it once but the brakes were sticking. That was over 1.5 years ago


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Motorhead350]

My buddy was pretty pissed when he bought a 2010 GT with the 4.6 when he could have waited a year for the 5.0.

1st world problems.

[Davesvt2000]

It is my understanding that Ford will offer the Ecoboost mustang with a track pack option, bigger brakes, sway bars, shocks, springs, etc.

This would probably make for a hell of an open track car, with a huge front end weight advantage..

[jsignorelli]

If you want to see what owners have done to the SVO Mustang, go to Carlisle. A member of my Mustang club has an '85 SVO. He tells us that owners have increased the turbo to 45 lbs of boost, and run with 90 lb injectors. When they start their cars, I put my fingers in my ears expecting them to blow up!

I run a tame 19 lbs of boost on my 331 stroker, with 45 lb injectors in my '93 GT.
My '89 LX Coupe runs with 11 lbs of boost on a 347 stroker, with 45 lb injectors.
Nothing too crazy, just fast.

[kirk]

Man am I getting old. When I saw the title line my first thought was 1982! You could even go 1968, but that's not what they called it then.

[88LTDCV351]

The new stags are not cheap anymore. :eek::eek:

That is what I've been trying to tell people. The Mustangs I would want are no longer affordable to the average Joe.

[ChiTownMaraud3r]

That is what I've been trying to tell people. The Mustangs I would want are no longer affordable to the average Joe.

Same goes for the Camaro SS and Z/28. Very high prices on these compared to before.. The Challenger R/T is probably the most economical. But these pony cars were relatively cheap to purchase and have fun with in the 90s and early 2000s. Different story now.