2009 Ford Mustang to get a hardtop convertible?

[quick5pnt0]

This topic is for discussion of the following:
http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/2009mustang.html

2009 Ford Mustang to get a retractable hardtop convertible?

[Doc Coffin]

Right!
Lets make the car heavier.
That`ll show `em.
Why don`t they just put a serious engine in it?

[quick5pnt0]

LOL, good point. I think it's time Ford starts going with a larger motor anyway. I could never understand why they didn't just make the 4.6L a 5.0L from the beginning anyway.

[asp]

Ford never actually haD A 5.0. iT WAS A 4.9, 5.0 JUST SOUNDED BETTER.

[quick5pnt0]

True, either way why not make it a 5.0 (4.9) rather than a 4.6?

[ASCMcLrn]

Ford never actually haD A 5.0. iT WAS A 4.9, 5.0 JUST SOUNDED BETTER.

I realize this is an old post but feel compelled to correct a wrong. I found this site in a search on the net.

Actually it was originally a 5.0. Then Ford reduced the car from a 302 to a 255 around 1980-81. When they went back to a 302 in 1982 it was slightly smaller on the cc henceforth registering as a 4.9L. Rather then renaming it they decided to still call it a 5.0.

Next the retractlable top will be done by Peter Muscat who originally designed the 1984-86 ASC McLaren Capri and 1987-1990 ASC McLaren Mustang. This car will in fact be 100lbs lighter not heavier then a regular convertible Mustang!!!

[quick5pnt0]

Well that's his point, that it was 302 cubic inches which equals 4.9L In order for it to be an actual 5.0L it would need to be 305.118 cubic inches

302 cu. in. = 4.94889
305 cu. in. = 4.99805

[ASCMcLrn]

Well that's his point, that it was 302 cubic inches which equals 4.9L In order for it to be an actual 5.0L it would need to be 305.118 cubic inches

302 cu. in. = 4.94889
305 cu. in. = 4.99805

Just to cover this so we are on the same sheet of music. When you round something up to the next place it would have to be 5 or greater, in this case all it would have to be is 4.95 to be rounded up. The original 302 was slightly larger then 302 but rounded down. For arguments sake lets say it was 302.4 cubic inches. When you converted it into cc's it was enough to round it up to a 5.0L. When they changed it to a 255 then back to a 302 they actually lost a little size bringing it down more closely to a 4.9L. Pre 79's should correctly be 5.0L.

ASP said, "Ford never actually haD A 5.0. iT WAS A 4.9, 5.0 JUST SOUNDED BETTER." this is untrue, Ford did actually have a 5.0. Aside of it "just sounded better" Ford also had a 300 ci 4.9L 6 cylinder engine that would be very confusing to both customers and Ford calling them both 4.9L when one is an 8 the other a 6cylinder. Take care.

[quick5pnt0]

Ford also had a 300 ci 4.9L 6 cylinder engine that would be very confusing to both customers and Ford calling them both 4.9L when one is an 8 the other a 6cylinder. Take care.

Good point. I agree that it was so close to being a 5.0L that it actually was a 5.0L, but I can also see where people are coming from when they say it was a 4.9L because technically it was. Although it was roughly a 4.94889L

[87ASC]

That retractable hardtop is pretty cool, he is calling it MSW now. He also did have a similar setup like the article say's, it wasn't just the Mustang's from 87-90 but it was also made for the Capri's from 84-86.
Donovan.

[roush4life]

Yea I'm not sure the hardtop is such a good idea, the extra lbs probably wouldn't be worth it.