The 5.0 Has Landed Down Under

thaywood

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
96
Location
Candor, North Carolina, United States
I know this is off-topic, but I'm a HUGE fan of the Australian Ford Falcon and thought I'd post that the Mustang GT's 5.0L Coyote V-8 has made it to the Falcon. In Aussie supercharged FPV GT tune, it puts out about 450hp (give or take) and a whole buncha torque (don't have my NM to FT-Lb converter handy). I'd love to see the Falcon brought to the USA. It's a truely amazing car that American consumers should be able to get. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.fpv.com.au/the-new-boss-v8.aspx
 
570nm = 420 ft-lb

doesnt sound right.

450hp is weak too, the new Boss is 440hp n/a
 
570nm = 420 ft-lb

doesnt sound right.

450hp is weak too, the new Boss is 440hp n/a

The 5.0 in the new Mustang makes 412hp and 390ft/lbs. Which one are you talking about?

450hp isn't bad from 302 cubic inches. And it's better than the 422hp that the old 5.4L n/a V-8 made. I'm sure it'll get better year after year just like the 5.4 did.
 
The 5.0 in the new Mustang makes 412hp and 390ft/lbs. Which one are you talking about?

450hp isn't bad from 302 cubic inches. And it's better than the 422hp that the old 5.4L n/a V-8 made. I'm sure it'll get better year after year just like the 5.4 did.

the down under 5.0 is supercharged, and it is only making 450hp and 420 ft-lb?

thats only 38 more hp and 30 more ft-lb than the none supercharged 5.0 in the USA !

plus the new 5.0 in the 2012 BOSS Mustang(USA) is rated 440hp and 380 ft-lb normally aspirated

the supercharged numbers from down under sound very weak.
 
It's still not bad for a start. The first 5.4L DOHC V-8 they put into the Falcon made 388hp. The latest one made 422. So several years later, the horsepower went up substantially. I wouldn't be surprised if the Aussie 5.0 wasn't making 500hp in a couple of years. Either way, we need the Falcon over here desperately. Ford doesn't know how many people here in the USA would sell their souls for a car like this with a Ford oval on it. It's a crying shame that you have to go all the way to the other side of the world to get a real Ford musclecar (The Mustang not withstanding. It's got a primitive log axle out back and cheapo struts in the front. The Falcon has proper upper and lower control arms and coil-overs in the front like the Mark VIII and Control Blade independent in the rear. They could do so much better with the Mustang).
 
man they must have de-tuned the hell out of that thing, whats the point of a SC if your only gonna get about 10HP
 
man they must have de-tuned the hell out of that thing, whats the point of a SC if your only gonna get about 10HP

Actually, they got 38 more hp.

Maybe Australia has different EPA regs than the US. You never know. Maybe it's a low boost supercharger. Maybe they're not willing to go all out just yet until the long term reliability of the engine can be proven? Who knows. I just want one. Real bad.
 
That is a very minimal gain in hp for adding a supercharger. And Ford wont bring it here cause there are changes to the chasis that need to be made to meet American safety standards and that cuts into profit. The SHO is Fords domestic high power 4-door.
 

Yeah. That's pretty awesome. But it's still in a Mustang. Nice looking car. But the chassis is stone age technology. Cheapo struts in the front and log axle out back. The Falcon has proper upper and lower control arms in the front like the Mark VIII and independent in the rear as it should be. And it has 4 doors. I like 2 door cars, but with a family, I need a 4 door. A good RWD one. The FWD/AWD Tar-Ass just won't cut it for me. I hate FWD. The sight of an engine mounted sideways under a car's hood fills me with rage:mad:.
 
i know what you mean about the chassis/suspension thaywood, but have you seen the reviews touting how this mustang outhandles most sports cars? on rough roads even

Motortrend just tested it against the BMW M3 and it was so close to a draw it made the $64000 bmw look like a piece of crap. it out cornered the M3, outbraked it and matched it and or beat it in all acceleration runs.

old chassis means nothing to me if it gets the job done.
 
i know what you mean about the chassis/suspension thaywood, but have you seen the reviews touting how this mustang outhandles most sports cars? on rough roads even

Motortrend just tested it against the BMW M3 and it was so close to a draw it made the $64000 bmw look like a piece of crap. it out cornered the M3, outbraked it and matched it and or beat it in all acceleration runs.

old chassis means nothing to me if it gets the job done.

I liked how the driver ( can't remeber his name, but that guy works for BMW) was saying that that BMW was boring
and basically the Mustang won all events against the M3, even if it took several runs in the 1/4 to get a jump. The driver mentioned that he wasn't pushing the mustang thru the corners like he was the m3, he wouldn't take the corners in 2nd in the Stang which cost some time I'm sure, and since he was pushing thru most curves in 2nd in the m3 ...the M3 won that course, but only by 1 second
 
It didn't win by a second. It wasn't even a tenth of a second.
 
Ford should've taken a page from GM's book, the Falcon should be Ford's new Police Interceptor. I think the Taurus will do OK, but I'll bet the new Caprice will outsell it 2:1 within a couple years (until the Carbon E7 comes out.)
 
Ford should've taken a page from GM's book, the Falcon should be Ford's new Police Interceptor. I think the Taurus will do OK, but I'll bet the new Caprice will outsell it 2:1 within a couple years (until the Carbon E7 comes out.)

yeah, that carbon may rule law enforcement, especially if they get the cost down over time
 
Ford should've taken a page from GM's book, the Falcon should be Ford's new Police Interceptor. I think the Taurus will do OK, but I'll bet the new Caprice will outsell it 2:1 within a couple years (until the Carbon E7 comes out.)

I agree wholeheartedly! Ford needs the Falcon. And not just for the police car. The Falcon could give Ford the ammo it needs to comete with the growing number of RWD V-8 powered sedans from other companies.
 
i know what you mean about the chassis/suspension thaywood, but have you seen the reviews touting how this mustang outhandles most sports cars? on rough roads even

Motortrend just tested it against the BMW M3 and it was so close to a draw it made the $64000 bmw look like a piece of crap. it out cornered the M3, outbraked it and matched it and or beat it in all acceleration runs.

old chassis means nothing to me if it gets the job done.

I get that. It's a matter of opinion. I, personally, hate struts. Struts belong on cheap Korean econoboxes, not on high performance sports or luxury cars. That's one of the many reasons I love my Mark VIII. No frakkin struts! And a live rear axle? Come on. That is ancient technology that was already obsolete a decade ago. No other car company in the world would even dream of building a new RWD car in the 21st century with a log axle in the back. And if the Stang did that well with its primitive 20th century suspension, think of how much better it could have been with a proper upper and lower control arm front and multilink independent rear suspension.
 
I get that. It's a matter of opinion. I, personally, hate struts. Struts belong on cheap Korean econoboxes, not on high performance sports or luxury cars. That's one of the many reasons I love my Mark VIII. No frakkin struts! And a live rear axle? Come on. That is ancient technology that was already obsolete a decade ago. No other car company in the world would even dream of building a new RWD car in the 21st century with a log axle in the back. And if the Stang did that well with its primitive 20th century suspension, think of how much better it could have been with a proper upper and lower control arm front and multilink independent rear suspension.
So even though a new Mustang with the ancient live axle can out handle anything in its price range (an some cars costing MUCH more), pull a higher G-rating, ride better, easier to repair, cheaper to repair, simpler design and keep costs down on the Mustang you think its worthless? The cars abilities are far greater then almost any IRS equipped car out there. Then you have the plus of a superior setup for drag racing which is what most Stang guys are after.
At Gearheads Performance there were 5 03/04 Cobras in the shop. 4 had live axle conversions and 3 of those were setup for road course tracks.

A properly setup live axle can do (or work better) then an IRS in track conditions. Only time IRS becomes the better rear is on rough and uneven surfaces.


And I hate to break this to ya but Marks have struts up front.
 
I hate to break it to you, but Mark VIII's do not have struts (Mark VII's do though). Mark VIII's have upper and lower control arms. A strut suspension doesn't have an upper control arm and the strut is mounted directly to the spindle and turns with the steering. In order for it to do this, there must be a bearing cap on top of the strut so it can rotate freely and not scrape the shock tower when it turns. The Mark VIII's air spring/shock absorber assembly (as Ford Motor Company refers to it) looks like a McPherson strut because it is a combination of a shock and a spring, hence the common misconception.

Here is a typical strut suspension from the Mustang:

mustang struts.jpg

Notice it has no upper control arms and the strut bolts directly to the spindle and turns with the wheels. Strut suspensions have fewer parts than control arm setups and thus cost less to manufacture. Hence their popularity on small, FWD econoboxes.

This is a typical upper and lower control arm design with a combined coil spring/shock absorber assembly similar to the Mark VIII's.

a-arms5.JPG

Notice the upper control arm and the shock mounted to the lower control arm, not the spindle. Although the coil spring is mounted to the shock, this is not a McPherson strut. It does not perform the same task as a strut. A strut replaces the upper control arm and acts as a damper, an upper locating link, and dirctly affects the alignment of the front suspension. In a upper/lower control arm design, the shock/spring only acts as a damper and does not locate the suspension or affect alignment. Upper/lower control arm suspensions have more parts and are more expensive to produce, thus they are more prevalent on higher end RWD vehicles.

Unfortunately, I realize that nobody's ever going to stop calling them "struts". They look like struts, therefore they must be struts. And that's okay. But I will never call a Mark VIII's shock a "strut". However, I will call a Mark VII's shocks struts, because they are:D. The VII was a Fox-based car and did indeed use struts. But that's a whole other discussion.

And...apologies for the rant. It just irritates me that people still call the Mark VIII's shocks "struts". I have never liked struts. I prefer upper and lower control arms because that type of suspension rides better, handles better, and offers more adjustment options than a strut design. The McPherson strut was originally designed as a cost-cutter for GM in the 1940's I think. GM didn't use it and Ford eventually adopted the design on some of their European cars in the late 1940's. As FWD became more popular, so did the strut. If you could eliminate the upper control arm and move the shock/spring away from the half-shaft, the front suspension of a FWD car could be made less complicated and use fewer parts. That's why struts are almost synonymous with FWD. 90% of the FWD cars on the road have struts in the front. And since I loathe FWD, I loathe struts almost as much. Again, sorry for the rant.

mustang struts.jpg


a-arms5.JPG
 
And no, just because the Mustang has a stone-age suspension design does not make it "worthless". It does, however, make it far less appealing to me, personally. When they finally decide to give the Mustang the proper suspension it deserves, I'll like it a lot more.
 
I read about a year ago that Ford was considering bringing the falcon to the north american market. The major hurdle was that the aussie falcon is rhd only, and the article said that the next falcon might be wrong wheel drive.

And as for the Mustang. I own one, 2011 3.7L. Might only be a V6 but it does have 300+ hp and 280 lbft, so its by no means slow. It drives fantastically, much better than my old LS, its faster and handles better.

I doubt the next GT500 will be Coyote based since Ford has announced a new GT350 with the 5.0 in supercharged form, with 500 hp. Check out Carroll Shelby's site. If I could afford one, its the one I would have. Or the new Boss 302. What I would really like to see in the GT500 is a new 5.8L instead of the 5.4L. It'd be sweet to have a new 351.
 
Yeah Thaywood, you are correct on the Mark. My bad. Got caught up in all the parts places calling it a strut. Forgot about installing MM bearing plates (camber castor plates) on my Mustangs.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top