I miss the 5.0, one of the best sounding engines ever made.
I think this is good news since they never should have gotten rid of it in the first place. Ford has never cared about the Mustangs competition before, so I can't image why they'd care much now. The mustang is an image, feel and sound. It's not really competitive in performance, and it never has been. The Mustang will continue to outsell pony cars from every other manufacturer combined regardless of having a 300hp 4.6 or a 350hp 5.0 available.

Now, que the anti-V8, anti-american, anti-Ford, anti-gasoline garbage which I'm sure you're all just dying to post.

The 5.0 was a great engine, that's for sure. The 4.6 isn't bad, but it just doesn't have the spirit of the 302. Either way, I can't see how this can be the case if Ford is truly working on their EcoBoost engines. IMO It would be more realistic to expect a twin turbo V6 than a large-displacement V8.

@CheapCarLover:

I'd have to agree about the sound of the 5.0, nothing beats it. It was also a stout performer and pretty reliable. One of Fords better attempts at engineering.

already in two days, do we learn that Ford is NOT serious about emission reductions.

This was mentioned as "speculation" is a recent Motor Trend. And it wouldn't be the old ohv 5.0, it would be an up sized version the 4.6 sohc, possibly a DOHC V8.

@W&S

Just because they offer the engine doesn't mean they aren't interested in reducing emission. If they only produced Mustangs with a big V8 that would be different, but their V6 model actually gets pretty good mileage. Ford has alredy said most of their V8's will be replaced with TT V6's but some people still want that sound and down low power of a nice V8. A rediculously small amount of total Mustangs sold are actually GT's anyway, most are V6 models, probably sold to women. Ford would be dumb not to offer a V8 as it would irk many loyal Mustangs fans and reduce sales to the other 2 Muscle cars.

The 5.0 was a good engine, in a lot of ways better than the 4.6 that replaced it I hope if Ford develops a 5.0 they start from scratch and do it right, instead of just bore/stroke on the 4.6.

Anyways I rate best Ford Engines ever as.

427 Cobrajet
300 I-6
351 Cleveland
302/5.0

The 300 is literally the most durable engine that I have ever seen, my dad sold his F-150 with 200k miles on it and it still ran like a top with no major work over the life of the truck, My uncle John's went 280k without any issues beyond a clutch rebuild around 200K and ran well when he sold it. And one of the kids in my high school had one that had over 350k miles on it and still ran well.

Having said that the 427 gives me wood.

That's terrific, we need more 5.0L V8s so we can sell our country to the Arabs sooner.

I saw one of those 1990 some odd mustangs with a 5.0, it sounded beautiful. The guy driving it peeled out too, sweet shit. And please don't start bitching about wasting gas and whatever, most people who buy this are willing to except the consequences of owning a 5L V8 (ie low gas mileage). And on any note, its going to account for a small portion of mustangs sold, like Gary said. Some people like having fun with their cars, others want them just to get around.

Now, que the anti-V8, anti-american, anti-Ford, anti-gasoline garbage which I'm sure you're all just dying to post.

Hahaa, yank cars are rubbish :)

The current 4.6L V8 has an epa rating of 15/23, which is far better than most of the SUVs and equal to most minivans.

screw earth and screw those liquefied prehistoric lizards!

@pete:
maybe because it's propelling a relatively small sports car that basically can carry only 2 people....

Well the new 5.0 pobably won't sound like the old 5.0, simply because as others suggested, it's probably a stroked/bored out 4.6. That being said, Ford did a lot to try and match the 5.0 ohv sound with the sohc 4.6.

The 300 was so reliable because it was an inline-6, and with 7 main bearings anything is reliable. That's why the 5.9 cummings turbo diesel is so stout.

I'd like to try driving a mustang with the ecoboost twin-turbo V6 they have in the works. What is it, like 3.5 liters and 360 HP (or something like that.) I would expect that to eventually become the standard mustang GT setup with the rising mileage standards. Maybe the Cobras will get V8's at that point.

Just add the functionality where half the cylinders are not in use until the engine actually needs it, and gain back around 15% fuel economy.

There are plenty of tricks to add fuel economy, they just need to invest the engineering talent to actually implement them.

I'd like to see this new engine with a DOHC 4 valve head and an improved valve timing mechanism. Maybe they could throw in some direct injection? I'm sure Ford could pull at least 400hp out of this new engine and have it spin to over 7000rpm. Hopefully their benchmark for this engine is along the lines of Toyota's 2UR-GSE

ford has has this engine available for over 7 years I dont see why this is news. Its a 3.7" bore version of the standard 4.6l. In dohc trim it makes around 400hp. Saleen came out with the parnelli jones which also has this engine. As for the best engines fords made the 300 i6 should not be on that list and the cleveland while a great high end performer was a dog below 3000 rpm I know this because I used to have a cleveland. Where is the 427 cammer on that list of the 429 boss or the 460 or the 289 hipo. All of those are amazing engines.
my best ford engine list
427 cammer 625 hp from the factory.
5.0 cammer 400 hp rated
429 boss
289 hipo
5.4l cobra r engine. 385 hp

@Bob:

Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that US oil consumption has essentially leveled if not declined over the past 5 years. It's the rest of the world that's starting to use more and keeping prices up. This and the fact that the US military is using more fuel per day than the entire state of Massschusetts are the main reasons for fuel costs today, not a couple thousand 5.0 drivers.

Also, compared to other musclecars a 5.0 is rather small.

As already stated, people are not going to be breaking down the door to purchase the 5.0L version, only those who can really afford it, and a few who cannot.

Gas up here in Canada is roughly $4.50 a gallon, so with prices like that I do not foresee a lot of people running out the door to buy the 5.0l version. Most who want the vehicle would probably be more conservative and buy the V6 version.

Wheres the Cosworth engines?

Ford has designed some great I4's over the year also. I gotta say the sound of two screaming turbos might change peoples mind.

"waldorf and statler:
already in two days, do we learn that Ford is NOT serious about emission reductions."

A slightly larger displacement engine alone doesn't mean a lot more emissions, design has much more to do with it, take the 3.5L V6 Honda uses in the Ridgeline/Pilot, now take the 8.4L V10 Dodge uses in the Viper, there's a mear 5% difference between the two engines CO2 output even though the Viper's engine is almost 2.5X the displacement.

Unfortunately, I disagree with the statement that most people won't buy the car. Cars are like the housing market or American materialism in general. People will "want" it when they shouldn't and regardless of income will buy stuff they can't afford. Here in San Diego I shake my head all the families crying that their house is foreclosing. They earn under $100K a year and thought they could afford a $600K thousand house while paying all the rest of the bills for a full family. Then, as a servicemember...I see young Sailors and Marines buying these cars at current insurance rates and gas prices...knowing full well it will eat them up in debt, especially when they fork out tons more money to lift their truck, at 24+" rims to their cars, and install $2000+ stereo systems. Then they get in huge trouble when they can't pay...both legally and by the military. I love the idea of this car, but now is not the best time for it...America is in enough trouble already...hahaha.

Unfortunately, I disagree with the statement that most people won't buy the car. Cars are like the housing market or American materialism in general. People will "want" it when they shouldn't and regardless of income will buy stuff they can't afford. Here in San Diego I shake my head all the families crying that their house is foreclosing. They earn under $100K a year and thought they could afford a $600K thousand house while paying all the rest of the bills for a full family. Then, as a servicemember...I see young Sailors and Marines buying these cars at current insurance rates and gas prices...knowing full well it will eat them up in debt, especially when they fork out tons more money to lift their truck, at 24+" rims to their cars, and install $2000+ stereo systems. Then they get in huge trouble when they can't pay...both legally and by the military. I love the idea of this car, but now is not the best time for it...America is in enough trouble already...hahaha.

"Ford is working on a new Mustang for 2010 and this time the stakes are even higher since the new Camaro and Challenger are set to steal the Mustang's market share...There are rumors that Ford could be working on a new 5.0L V8 for the Mustang. "

This sounds so obvious to me. Its a marketing ploy. With the 35mpg fleet law coming into play, all the performance cars may very well vanish. If history is repeating itself, could be 1970-1974 all over again. How can a 5.0 get 35mpg? Produce 145hp? Tell the public the 5.0 is coming back....hey, I think I'll not buy that expensive Camaro or Challenger and wait on the new Mustang....

I have 5 cars. One of them a '92 Mustang 5.0 with 39,000 miles and some minor modifications like headers, X-pipe, mufflers, intake, etc.

I agree with what some people say. If you want the car you will buy it even if you don't use it as your main daily driver.

I hope that if they decide to make a new cammer engine they do it the correct way. With 4 valves per cylinder and with bigger cylinder bores and not the easy way by stroking it. The current 4.6 bores are way smaller than the old 5.0 engine and that limits its performance. And forget about cylinder de activation. It sucks. If you want to save gas buy a small 4 cylinder car.

Lets not ruin the Mustang. Let it have a 5.0. I can't afford the gas and want a Mazda2. To each his own. And as for Chevy and Dodge getting Mustang market share: These cars cost $5k more then the 'stang. The Mustang will win again if the competion can't equal the Mustang's (low) price.

Gary:
@Bob:

Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that US oil consumption has essentially leveled if not declined over the past 5 years.

@Gary:

Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that you're full of crap.

To Bob:

US oil consumption (thousnad barrels):

2003: 5,601,149
2004: 5,675,363
2005: 5,586,077
2006: 5,555,340
2007: 5,518,611

Looks like Gary was right.

@Sandra:

While that CO2 emission numbers may be true, car manufacturers and our own EPA doesn't care about CO2 emissions. What really hurts the environment are the nitrogen oxides emissions (NOx) and hydrocarbon emissions (which is just un-burnt fuel). CO2 really doesn't matter as it is a normal product of the combustion process. In a perfect world, the only emissions products coming out of our engines would be CO2, some water, and heat. When you have any other products coming out of the engine, they change the eq of the engine(open system, I know, but since most of the ground atmosphere is somewhat homogenous...) so that detracts from the CO2 product or water product. Contrary to your belief, the fact that the 8.4l viper engine only makes within 5% the amount of CO2 as the Honda engine can mean one of two things: the Honda engine is really efficient, or the Viper engine is not very efficient. Or maybe it is some of both...

Either way, read up on the emissions concerns and regulations at the EPA website and pick up a chemistry book some time. This is like really basic stuff. CO2 isn't bad... Plants live off the stuff! The ozone molecules use it as a "blanket" so they won't mix with other radicals! Just cuz you can suffocate on it doesn't mean it's bad, people suffocate in water.

*rant on*

Man I am tired of listening to you people complain about big engines and gas prices every time a new car announcement comes out. This is a MUSTANG, meant to consume mass amounts of fuel and provide a fun muscle car feel. It is NOT a commuter, it is NOT a gas saver, and it most certainly is NOT a "green" car. So please stop wasting your time, conserve some oxygen and just resist your psycho babble.

If you want a Yaris or the hypocritical economy Hybrid, have at it. Not everyone does, and not everyone should have to. This is America where we supposedly have the freedom to chose. If we want to wallow in our own debt and drive a 5.0 Mustang while eating Mcdonalds, so be it.

*rant off*

Ford is really on a roll. They better build a totally new 5.0 OHV engine just like the original 5.0 Mustang.

Hooray!!! Go Ford!!!

Although Ford should increase the width of the rear tires to improve traction with a beefy 5.0 sittin' in the front.

For all the talk of best engines Ford ever made, I think I saw one plug for the 351 Cleveland? What? Common, it was cheap and had power on nearly anything way back when.

Still, I will (thank you for the que cheap car lover) start with some V8 bashing. One it makes no sense to develop a new 5.0 with the new gas mileage requirements. The twin-turbo technology makes much more sense. Even more so since they are already developing that engine.

Second it doesn't fit with the Ford mythos. The whole point behind the Mustang was that it is a platform to build on, and engine tuners can bore and stroke the 4.6L to 5L easily. It'd make more sense for there to be a new Boss engine, yes a new 427 would have way more nostalgia.

Third, at least the Australians are doing it, hence it won't have typical crappy American quality...

There is a market for many different engines in different applications. Ford has developed a 7.0 8 cyl that one of the dragrecers is running. the market is just smaller for 7.0 than a 4.0 6 cyl. Shove that in the next GT500. Depending on how they tune the engine the gas mileage can be good or bad. That V6 with twin turbos will make more power by upping the boost and adding larger injectors wich decreases the gas milage. If they think an engine will make them money even in a small market and it fits an objective then they'll build it.

I'm all for v8's and poor fuel economy because I love polluting and trashing the earth. I litter when I can i throw barrels of oil into lakes and throw my big mac's on your wannabe trophy wives but the truth of the fact is it looks like her face got caught in a fence. Also I hope your hippie children choke on the smog and pollutents I created because thats what I wanted for you treehuggers to whine and complain more...go save a tree hippie.

I'm all for v8's and poor fuel economy because I love polluting and trashing the earth. I litter when I can i throw barrels of oil into lakes and throw my big mac's on your wannabe trophy wives but the truth of the fact is it looks like her face got caught in a fence. Also I hope your hippie children choke on the smog and pollutents I created because thats what I wanted for you treehuggers to whine and complain more...go save a tree hippie.

The only reason I wouldn't look at the Mustang is the HP numbers. I went with the last GTO and glad I did for now. As for the 5.0, I agree, they should have enhanced this powerplant. My 89 ran great with the 5 speed, never could figure out why Ford just fell off the map with factory HP.

GM makes the better motors. Ford has had 11 years to make a motor comparable to the "LS" series that was first introduced in a 97 Vette. They are just now starting to catch up to GM's "old" tech. They just couldn't seem to make the power (without a supercharger) and couldn't get the gas milage if their life depended on it. Compare the specs of the 93-2002 Z28's vs 93-2002 Mustang Gt's. Ford couldn't even hit the 300hp barrier (n/a) in the Mustang GT till 2005, 7 years after Chevy did (even though they underated the HP of the LS1 to "305"). All of this info posted is freely available on the internet. I used fueleconomy.gov for all mpg quotes. V6 Mustang sales vs. V6 Fbody sales was the only reason GM stopped making the Fbody after 2002.

2002 Mustang GT: 260hp/302ftlbs
4.6L/Manual 5 speed - 16/23
4.6L/Auto - 16/22

2002 Camaro Z28: "rated at" 310hp/340ftlbs
(Closer to 330-350hp stock)
LS1 5.7L/Manual 6 speed - 17/26
LS1 5.7L/Auto - 16/23

------------------------------------------------
2008 Mustang GT: 300hp/320ftlbs
4.6L/Manual 5 speed - 15/23
4.6L/Auto - 15/22

1998 Camaro Z28: "rated at" 305hp/345ftlbs
(Closer to 330-350hp stock)
LS1 5.7L/Manual 6 speed - 16/25
LS1 5.7L/Auto - 15/23