its over 9000!!!
seems a bit rounded out

Wow 312hp!?!? I'm less than impressed. Yet another rustang/chumpstang that can't run with the big boys.

In a day and age of high gas prices and global warming, does one really need all that gas guzzling horsepower?

For thos who like muscle cars, it is another reason why Mustang sells so well; lots of horsepower. :)

are people here snickering at 312 HP?? wow

So umm... How does this compare with the supposed 300HP on the GT versions... ROFL 12HP more? You can add more than 12HP just by adding a few NOS stickers and a wing right? Just kidding btw...

you are all sick morons..... really..... small dicks and even smaller brains... poor guys....

If you guys go like it, go by a Camaro or something..... oh wait, they haven't been making them for years.

If you guys "DON'T" like it.... typo

"are people here snickering at 312 HP?? wow"

Considering you can get a Cadillac Grandpa-mobile with like 450 hp these days, yea, 312 for a "high performance" car is a joke - especially from a 4.6 liter V8.

can you find me a car that for the price will run with a mustang? and 10,000 over the price does not count as its price range (wrx,sti). snickering at 312 hp and you are probably driving some cheap import. i can tell you that the power pak has more than 12 hp and a lot more torque.

yeah the caddi is supercharged and the mustang isnt. wow apples to oranges. every other engine out there making 300 hp or so isnt going to even touch the torque numbers the mustang has unless its turbocharged. that lack of torque does something for them though. lets a mustang run a quarter faster than a 306hp 3.5 v6.

"Considering you can get a Cadillac Grandpa-mobile with like 450 hp these days, yea, 312 for a "high performance" car is a joke - especially from a 4.6 liter V8."

The 450hp Cadillacs are closer in price to the 500hp Shelby Mustang.

I agree that it's a little disappointing though. Only a slight improvement over a regular GT. If it's priced right, it will do fine.

But still, I'd wait for a 2009 Camaro or 2010 Mustang to get a major performance upgrade if that's the kind of car you want.

"In a day and age of high gas prices and global warming, does one really need all that gas guzzling horsepower?"

The Mustang matches equivalent performance Japanese cars in gas mileage. Go post this message in the next STi or EVO thread just to be fair.

312 hp is tons of power. If they could just make the thing lighter and introduce modern rear suspension and keep the price there would be no contest.

Bullit also has a nice cleaner look to it.

Comparing a cheap sports car to a luxury sedan shows how much you know about cars.

12 HP is lame... should be 400HP to really differentiate it, but they may be saving that for the Mach. But I think the Bullitt has always been more cosmetic touches, not power. They are probably leaving power on the table for the Mach and Cobra to fill in the higher performance numbers.

Lol again the bias any many posters here hating on anything American.

Let me get this right... you guys talk about power to weight ratios and stuff all the time...practice what you preach for a change.

It's ok for a Honda to have less horsepower because it's a lighter car and doesn't need it... you guys make that case all the time.

But then when a Mustang only has 312 HP, you turn around and compare it to a full size brick of a luxury sedan that has more power and weighs a lot more and say the Mustang doesn't have enough power?

Double standards much?

And it's ok for a M3 to have a 400+ HP V8 and it's praised and everyone blows a load over it. But a Mustang has 312 HP and we bring up "does anyone really need" and "global warming" and "high gas prices"

*shakes head*

If 312 HP is a joke for a "high performance car" then the S2000, MR2, RX7, 350Z, Evo, Sti, 300ZX, etc. are all jokes and not high performance sports cars....

Hello again Remy....:)

Still fugly

"yeah the caddi is supercharged and the mustang isnt. wow apples to oranges. every other engine out there making 300 hp or so isnt going to even touch the torque numbers the mustang has unless its turbocharged. that lack of torque does something for them though. lets a mustang run a quarter faster than a 306hp 3.5 v6."

My LS2 is making 400hp/395ft/lbs torque stock, and it's not blown.

"If 312 HP is a joke for a "high performance car" then the S2000, MR2, RX7, 350Z, Evo, Sti, 300ZX, etc. are all jokes and not high performance sports cars....
"
I would not call any of those cars HIGH performance cars. Stock for stock, an '05 GTO will take all those cars (in the 1/4 at least).

Sabby,

what is the displacement on your LS2?

Maybe that is why it's 400hp.

Sabby, neither do I, I have a twin screwed '03 Cobra so 300 HP isn't impressive to me at all. I'm just making a relative comparison, not comparing 500+ HP cars to 280 HP cars...

Most people wouldn't argue that the cars I listed are great performing sports cars that are nicely powered. And every single one of them all of them have less than 312 HP.

In other words a 320HP 3,505lbs Supra is "high performance" but a 312HP 3,450lbs Mustang isn't...

So much bias and hypocrisy...

Funny how people here think a 240 HP Civic can beat a 300 HP Mustang because of power-weight ratio, but a Mustang sucks because it has only 312 HP can't beat a Cadillac on the basis that it the Cadillac has 450 HP... I guess power-weight ratio only applies to Hondas and only a Civic can beat a car packing more horsepower...

*rolls eyes*

Much better car for the same price is Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 263HP, V6, 24 Valves.

wes:

Air is air, it doesn't matter if you use displacement or a blower of some kind.

However... you'll never find a turbo1.8L 4 cyl that can make 400 HP on 87 octane under 6,000 RPM...

Different methods for different reasons.

Luka,

If you want to buy a car that will lose is value like a hooker loses her panties then go for the Mitsubishi.

Chris,

He is comparing a 4.7L naturally aspirated to a 6.0L. My point was is of course his 6.0L would produce more power. The displacement is much higher.

wes,

or you could wait a couple years and buy the Mitsubishi once her panties are already lost.

forget the horsepower, I'd rather have an independent rear suspension!

Gm0n3y,

LOL.... I think the car loses value because of the quality of the vehicle, which is why I wouldn't want to own one. Other than the fact that the car might be fast, I haven't heard many good things about the vehicles.

312HP V8. WOO HOO! They're now beating Toyota's and Nissan's high output 3.5L V6 engines.

Ford really needs to pick up what's left of SVT, get some people from Ford Racing, and create a permenant group calls Special Vehicle Operations.... and it would be a true skunkworks.

And its purpose would be to make 'Special Vehicles' and designing custom parts for Fords and maybe even other vehicles.

I know people go around bashing American quality, but I'd put the Mustang's quality up against that Mitsubishi any day.

Ok so high performance, sure it pretty much (12 hp isnt a big diff people) the 3 series right? Probably sucks up more gas etc becuase of its bigger engine sure why not, maybe even louder so the little kiddies can pretend they have a fast car. But come on, these mustangs are just sad if you try to drive them anywhere but in a straight drag, and lets be serious - that isn't even driving at all (at least in my opinion)

I would like to be able to take my car (even with 12 hp less) down a curvy road. Sure the 3 series is expensive but if you want to go and brag about cars all day 10 grand more isnt that much.

Josh,

Sure a 3 series can handle better. But, I don't know if I would really want to own a BMW that spends more time in the shop than on the road.

"Chris:
Sabby, neither do I, I have a twin screwed '03 Cobra so 300 HP isn't impressive to me at all. I'm just making a relative comparison, not comparing 500+ HP cars to 280 HP cars..."

Terminator Cobras are definitely bad-ass! They respond really well to bolt-ons, makes me sick :)

Anyways, in regards to the Mustang: 312hp is not impressive at all for a V8, end of story. The bar has really been set by GM and Chrysler in regards to V8's to be at least 400hp in "affordable" ,"sporty" cars.

Now, if you're talking NA V6's, or blown 4's, 312hp is pretty impressive.

Sabby: totally agree. I've always thought Mustang V8s were sadly weak and underpowered (with the '03 Cobra being the exception).

I mean come on, 4.6L V8 and only 260 HP? (thats what Mustang GTs had until 2005)... Agree with you 100% anything over 4L and with 8 cylinders should be cranking out at least 400 HP, with 6 cyls these days making 300.
Coincidentally, note that 400/8 = 300/6 as expected.

And SOHC should have no difference on low end torque vs. push rod engines. 2 valves is 2 valves, period (though with a smaller bore, those valves are much smaller than a 5.7+, basically necessitating 4 valves on a 4.6 to have the same or more area... anyway rambling now...)

I wish Ford would make a 7.0L DOHC modular that I could drop in my Cobra... oh well 1200 HP on *pump gas* with a 325 stroker with worked heads and twin turbos should get me by... now where did I put my check book...

Actually, judging by how much headroom is in these engines, it's probably marketing and PR and keeps them low powered. There are plenty of 400-500+ HP N/A 4.6L in both SOHC and DOHC out there in GTs, Machs, and non supercharged Cobras.

It just costs more money that isn't on the original Ford invoice which keeps the cost down at the lot and thus sales high. And also more enticing to younger buyers who will be wary of insurance fees associated with these kinds of cars. Buy a 300 HP car, spend $1000 on it to get 400 HP, and still pay to insure a 300 HP car :)

Sabby,
I dont know why you'd think 312HP on a blown 4 is pretty impressive. The STi comes with 300 pure stock, the evo comes with 300 stock and the new evo X should be around 325...
With some modification a blown 4 can have over 425HP at all 4 wheels. Now given, its a 2.5L which is larger than the standard 4's (1.8 and 2.0)... But still, its a blown 4 with PLENTY of power.
Also, stock for stock, an 05 GTO beats the STi by .1 seconds in the 1/4. Yes, winning is winning, but considering the GTO has a 6.0L V8 with 400HP, and the STi is a turbo4 with 300HP... Thats not a big difference, chip the STi and you've got your .1 sec. And the handling on a GTO is not as good as the STi, so everyone just has to pick what works best for them.

Sure, pure American muscle will beat down a tuner car. But you've gotta tune the American muscle decently as well. And if you want the good handling + the tuning, your gonna have to put down some good money for a true sports car. Cause neither American muscle nor a tuner car will perform quite like a true sports car.

To me personally 312HP is not that much for today's horsepower war. I am not sure about torque, but for a Muscle car, I expect a little more, mind you who doesn't want more.

Just take a look at the modern day FAMILY Sedan.

Honda Accord 3.5 V6 = 268 HP
Toyota Camry 3.5 V6 = 269 HP
Nissan Altima 3.5 V6 = 270 HP

see a trend ... I know it's about 52 or so HP difference, but remember, a muscle car should blow away these cars, I know the Mustang will probably beat it in the 1/4, but you can't really say these FAMILY sedans can't hang around with a 312 HP Mustang.

If you said 350HP for the Mustang, that sounds a bit more impressive and fits for the "modern day muscle car".

"However... you'll never find a turbo1.8L 4 cyl that can make 400 HP on 87 octane under 6,000 RPM..."

You know, I'm tempted to find a way to contact BMW's headquarters and issue your challenge to their R&D team. If you read up on some of the stuff BMW's done with turbos...wow. I seem to recall some (non-production) around 700 hp 2 liter turbos back in the 70's that their racing department built.

Remy,

I will have that question batted around a BMW tomorrow....

You could be right.

being a big american ford it will handle like a wheelbarrow

why is it americans adore so many cars that drive like crap?

Bill,

are you talking about weight of the vehicle when you say big? This car will weigh less than a BMW 5 series. So it's not the size that will be holding the car back.

"yeah the caddi is supercharged and the mustang isnt. wow apples to oranges. every other engine out there making 300 hp or so isnt going to even touch the torque numbers the mustang has unless its turbocharged. that lack of torque does something for them though. lets a mustang run a quarter faster than a 306hp 3.5 v6."

IS350s can run 13.4-13.5 1/4s easily, love to see a mustang GT break out of the high 13s, wheres that torque again?

Remy:

Not on 91 octane or less and under 6,000 RPM you won't.

There is a reason they didn't go into production.

"I dont know why you'd think 312HP on a blown 4 is pretty impressive. The STi comes with 300 pure stock, the evo comes with 300 stock and the new evo X should be around 325..."

For stock, that's impressive (at least to me). Closest GM has is the 260hp ecotech.

With mods, yeah, anything can make more power. But for a stock 4 cyl, covered by manufacturer's warranty, 300hp is pretty good. :)

Oops my original condition was 87 octane. You can take a piece of American iron and run 400+ HP naturally aspirated on the crappiest gas you can find (and cheap bastards in America love cheap low quality gas, I'm not one of them) without waiting 3 blocks for the revs to build. If you can find that BMW engine, I want to see what happens to it when you run it on 87 octane unleaded at it's maximum boost and RPM...

Don't get me wrong, I know you can build up a 4 banger to make power just like any other engine (granted in the end the maximum power per cubic inch with a given fuel is a universal constant, hence top fuel V8 = 8000 HP top fuel I4 = 4000 HP no surprise there). I researched and planned and almost built a Toyota 3SGTE 2.0L turbo capable of making 700 HP. While it was fun doing it, I just scrapped plans to actually proceed with it.

It would have required all sorts of hoops, such as 9,000 RPM redline, 30+ psi boost, 117 octane leaded race gas or nitrous or methanol injection, etc. Those types of things just are not suitable for a street car. After all was said and done, I found that about 400-450 HP TOPS was all that could be expected safely with maximum boost and timing possible on 91 octane without external aid (i.e.: methanol) and that was with a 2.2L stroker, not the 1.8L displacement I imposed in my claim.

A street car is one you can pull into any gas station in the country and fill the tank and drive away with full power and full confidence and not have to worry about blowing up your engine on poor quality gas or an empty methanol bottle.

Hence "no replacement for displacement" and the reason I chose the bigger engine (even though 4.6L isn't big at all by American standards). I can make that same 700HP under 6,000 RPM and on 91 octane all day every day 24/7 with no special tunning or exotic fuel or induction crutches (such as nitrous, methanol, octane booster, etc).

Anyhow, I stand by my claim. You will not see a turbo 1.8L 4 cyl that is making 400 HP on 87 octane and under 6,000 RPM. I see turbo 4 bangers making 400 HP on the street quite often, but I guarantee you they are not running 87 octane and they are revving a lot higher than 6,000 RPM.

"Anyhow, I stand by my claim. You will not see a turbo 1.8L 4 cyl that is making 400 HP on 87 octane and under 6,000 RPM. I see turbo 4 bangers making 400 HP on the street quite often, but I guarantee you they are not running 87 octane and they are revving a lot higher than 6,000 RPM."

Given the 87 octane, thats a possibility. Im not an expert on octane ratings vs power, ect... But I know that on the Legacy GT forums, there are people that have dyno'ed their 2.5L Turbo 4cyl and they are rating 423+HP at the wheels. And that was on pump gas 91 or 93, cant remember which... But its possible to get regular pump gas and a turbo 4 past 400HP and have it run without a problem. But, again, I know they were using 91/93 octane and not the 87 stated in your challenge. And I dont remember the RPM's... So, that could be an issue too... But redline is at 6.5k, most of the time they raise it to about 7k for that extra little bit. But the turbo kicks in pretty low too. Not bad for a 4 door sedan. :) An 05 LGT will hang with a 300HP Mustang GT pretty easily :) Made my friend shut up when he couldnt pull away from me, and I had 2 other ppl in the car :) lol

Anyhow, I stand by my claim. You will not see a turbo 1.8L 4 cyl that is making 400 HP on 87 octane and under 6,000 RPM. I see turbo 4 bangers making 400 HP on the street quite often, but I guarantee you they are not running 87 octane and they are revving a lot higher than 6,000 RPM.

sure you can, they have been here and gone. here's one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_RS200, checkout sierra coswoth, opel C20LET

all the group 'B' were road cars as such they ran on road gas, 87 octane is called 91 (rating difference) in the UK and was the highest available at this time - you just need a low enough compression and about 1.5 bar of boost - Princess Diana even had one!

oh 87 actually contains more energy than higher grades, your engine just has to optimized for it, or higher grades need higher compressions to really harness it.

a turbo car doesn't need a huge rev ceiling to make - 3500 to 7000 ish will do fine as the turbos' pumping the air - the engine doesn't spin faster to flow the air (unsure if you understand this concept?)

To Chris and Remy,

Do you wanna see whats is possible with 91 gas and a 2 liter, look at the rally cars...

They cant use aditives in gas or higher displacement, so, you can be sure that they are doing what ever is possible to get more power from those engines.. and today they are around 410 to 430 hp.

Do you wanna see whats is possible in terms of high rev.. look at fast motocycles, the yamaha R1 has a 1.0 L 4 cylinder 180 hp engine. (at 14k rpm, if im not wrong)

These guys push it to the limit.

Rafael:

That sounds about right in line with what I found on the 3SGTE, which coincidentally was developed as a rally race engine from ground up.

But how about 87 octane with 1.8L and less than 6,000 RPM? ^_^

Not sure why I imposed those limits, I guess I was thinking of the Honda B18 which is a common boosted 4 cyl when talking about 4 cyl power production that can match a larger "less efficient" engine.

You can point at 15,000+ RPM engines in formula cars running on leaded race gas all you want. It will never be the preferred engine in a country where people put 87 octane in a car that clearly says "premium only" to save a few cents, much less an engine tuned border line with no room on the table for safety to make maximum possible power on a higher octane.

Hence why American engines are typically larger displacement engines with lower HP/L output. It's not about refinement or technology, it's about relying on volume rather than density to produce the same power without the hassles of detonation avoidance, crappy gas, power response immediately lower in RPMs, emissions control, etc.

Just different ways of doing the same thing due to different reasons.

"granted in the end the maximum power per cubic inch with a given fuel is a universal constant, hence top fuel V8 = 8000 HP top fuel I4 = 4000 HP no surprise there"

*sigh* Do you realize that displacement and number of cylinders are two totally different things? By your logic, BMW's 2 liter straight 6 (no longer in production...at least in the US anyways) has more displacement than Subaru's 2.5 liter boxer 4 just because it has six cylinders instead of four.

"It's not about refinement or technology, it's about relying on volume rather than density to produce the same power without the hassles of detonation avoidance, crappy gas, power response immediately lower in RPMs, emissions control, etc."

Yes, and which countries (generally) have higher performing cars that get better gas mileage? That's right, the non-American ones. BMW has a 3 liter straight six that not only puts out more power than the American's above 3 liter V6's, but it gets substantially better mpg too. So then.....what's the benefit of having a huge, underpowered engine again? If it's just the noise factor that makes you feel all "manly", you can manipulate pretty much any exhaust to sound exactly the same.

If I recall, the 4 cyl was exactly half the displacement of the 8 cyl... I thought that would be understood to be the case without my explicitly stating it.

"So then.....what's the benefit of having a huge, underpowered engine"

Hear that? That was the point of my last few posts explaining that going right over your head.

I'll try again. The benefit is that cheapskate Americans can put craptastic 87 octane in their cars and make the same power safely with a bigger engine than your 'smaller more efficient engine' that can only make the rated power on premium lest it go into limp mode, retard timing, or risk detonating.

"The benefit is that cheapskate Americans can put craptastic 87 octane in their cars and make the same power safely with a bigger engine than your 'smaller more efficient engine' that can only make the rated power on premium lest it go into limp mode, retard timing, or risk detonating."

You can get more power, better gas mileage, and a lower price by buying a Japanese car and still use that "craptastic 87 octane". Your argument doesn't exist. You're just being xenophobic.

Also, your comment about displacement was several posts back, so how are people supposed to know that you're talking about specific displacements without you saying so or them reading dozens of comments. I guess you read every post as soon as it's updated. I on the other hand have a life, college, and a job.

The reason 312 hp is a joke is not because it's not a lot of HP, it's because the stock car has 300 hp, and the Bullitt package is likely to cost in the same neghiborhood as the little Shelby package Mustang, around 10K for 12 hp is a joke. In fact this car looks a lot like the same joke the Shelby GT told, actually it looks almost like the same car.

Anyways it's amazing how a WRX STi manages to be so much faster than a Mustang with just 300 HP, and that a Lancer Evo 9 can do the same thing with just 286 HP.

So this would mean that the 380HP RWD Hyundai coming out will spank a Bullitt Mustang? Wow, Ford is really falling behind with the Mustang. Hell Nissan and Honda are squeezing 300+ from their little 3.5 V6's.

I love the styling of the Mustang but couldn't imagine being embarrassed in one by a G37. I can't even imagine what the new Camaro SS will do to this thing when it comes out.

I'm squeezing 700 HP out of my 4.6L DOHC V8 with a blower. When I get the money to build my twin turbo 325 stroker that should put out 1200 HP on 91 pump gas.

American junk.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/10390/2006-lexus-is350.html

wow a 13.7 1/4 mile. you must have a magical is350. plus for 10k added to my mustang (bringing to the is350 price) im sure the is350 will know what my taillights look like.

a v6 cant be that high performance if lexus is coming out with a 5 liter v8 making about as much hp as either the 5 liter cammer ford sells (400) or the focus rs v8 that ran with a gallardo making 50hp less than the lambo.

You are all missing the point here, the Bullit will "appreciate" like all good Mustangs do, $250k for a 1966 Hertz Shelby bought for what, +/-$3500 in the day, do the math, the after market will support Ford and in 40 years some chump will fork out a million dollars, Euro's, who cares. Where will your Evo be then? And as far as power, $4k for F/I even on a 4.0 will get you above 312 HP, at a fraction of the sticker, do some reading and expand your mind, I can buy a "used" Terminator for $23k and get +500 HP ALL DAY LONG on 93 octane and no special tuning, and could go much higher if I wanted to. More than $30k for a tuner car, BWAHAHAHAHA, la-hoo-zer, loser.