If you've seen the proposed future CAFE #s you'd understand why.
With Ford's 2007 fleet, under the new rules Ford would have to pay something like $20B in gas guzzler fines.

 

IIRC it was buried in a Detroit News article on Fords many problems, probably around 3-4 weeks ago. Didin't save the URL.

 

ok i've got a new line up
D35 v6 265 hp
315 hp 4.6
5.0 360 hp
-SE package (boss maybe?) 400 hp
5.4 425 hp
5.8 530hp+

just my dream line up tho

 

they should make a twin turbo v8.

 

In another post by BlueII on BON, a TT Boss engine is being worked on as an alternative to a Diesel engine...

 

Sorry, that was a rhetorical question, as I think it would be a great idea for Ford to add the TT engine.

 

how could tt be bad? im for it!

 

What TT mass production cars have ever done well from a marketing perspective? The 3000GT VR-4, 300ZX TT, and Supra TT were all cool/fast cars but none of them sold well enough to justify their development costs. Also, does anyone know what a D35 costs per unit compared to the 'Stangs 3v SOHC?

 

A TT Mustang doesn't really fit to me. I say put it in a performance version of the Fusion or in a Lincoln or Mercury based off the Mustang platform. A TT F-150 is kinda interesting but I'd rather see Ford put the GT500 5.4 in a new Lighting.

 

Those cars were overpriced for their markets for a variety of reasons, not their TT development costs alone. They were all actually pretty darned good cars but the market acceptance of any mass market brand Japanese cars in that price range just wasn't there, regardless of any inherent goodness of the actual cars themselves. Indeed, the TT Supra especially and the 300ZX to a lesser extent have become quite cult cars.

The first TT 2.7 V6 Audi S4s actually sold pretty well and still command a good price today in the used car market. They seem to be darlings of the ski set as their AWD combined with the high altitude compensating benefits of a turbo suite that group well apparently. That same motor was used in the A6 2.7, though to much less fanfare even while it was quite a nicely performing sleeper (sub 6-seconds to 60 with the available, if rare, manual tranny).

I don't see Ford developing a TT V6 solely for the Stang, but if developed for other uses, it would make an interesting plug-in motor for some SE Stang varient (SVT) to go after the Euro/Tuner/Japanese sports coupe market.

 

Alright, I'll give you the previous gen S4, but look at the car today--apparently Audi thought a V8 the better all around option. I definitely think the TwinForce is cool, I just find it hard to believe it would ever beat a similarly well-developed V8 with respect to factors beyond horsepower and torque (to name a few: manufacturing, repair, and fuel costs as well as packaging difficulties.)

 

From the rumors I've read on BON about the engine, the primary impetuous driving the TT 3.5L V6 was to make a more fuel efficient F-150 (where it can get 20 MPG City!), which we all know is Ford's bread and butter.

It also fits well with the D3 (500/Taurus platform) lack of being able to fit a 4.6L V8 in it, but the issue remaining with that is there isn't a heavy duty FWD/AWD transmission in Ford's line up that's good for over 260 FT Lb of Torque, so they are using some torque limiting programming in the computer to get around that, but to me sounds like a warranty/reliability issue waiting to happen to me...and will find a home in the MKS

 

The D35 in its most pedestrian state of tune gets Mustang GT gas mileage in a family sedan (MXX), how could a twin turbo, bored out/hotted up version get BETTER mileage in a truck?

 

In real-world experience, it probably would not get any better mileage. On paper though, in the EPA testing, it could very well get better mileage. This is the nature of the turbos.

At steady cruise, the turbos are not doing anything, and the engine is very efficient. When you give it the gas to get going, like stop and go driving, the turbos kick in and suck down the gas. While this kind of driving is certainly accounted for in the testing, it is not real world testing.

The majority of people out there do NOT drive the way the cars are tested. They go faster, and accelerate harder than the testing. This is where a turbo will suck down more gas than a n/a engine.

 

exactly, when the power is there, it will be used, and not lightly. just like when on a test drive, you gotta see how quick it gets to speed...well most people get to speed and then some, i normaly do 65-75 unless certian situations come to be, ie:i have to go to the bathroom i need to get home...85-90 lol its just figured that everybody will drive like grandma and grandpa, when in reality everybody attempts to drive like mario anddretti

 

Turbo motors can be real Dr. Jackyl and Mr. Hyde types when it comes to economy. Drive like grandma and you are basically driving a mildly tuned 3.5 liter. Bare your fangs, spool up the turbos and that motor will start guzzling like a frat boy at a free beer fest. Turbos also tend to run a bit rich under the whip to keep combustion temps and detonation at bay, also adding to the thirst when driven in anger. Probably really depends greatly on the type and style of driving as to whether any individual might actually realize more real-world economy with a turbo vs naturally aspirated motor of the same power.

 

True, and I realize the benefit of that nature with respect to a loaded and unloaded pickup, but would this offer a sufficient improvement compared to an efficient V8 to justify the added cost/complication of the turbos, intercoolers, and plumbing? I'm not positive the answer to that question is "no," so I'm glad Ford is doing the research and development to find out, but I have my doubts.

 

Titled Edited for Obvious Reasons

 

Y'know why doesn't Ford take a page from GM's book, big cube high torque V8 coupled to a trans with more than 4 gears and a really tall final drive ratio so that the engine is essentially idling for most of the time and offers good acceleration with minimal throttle input. Doesn't seem like a bad strategy Boss V8 copuled to a double OD 6spd auto or manual trans. Especially if the engine were to offer VVT and direct injection.

 

I'm all for a TT V6 as long as it doesn't replace the V8. The thing that won't make business sense is that if the TT V6 makes more power and gets better milage than the base V8, why would most consumers go with the V8? I'm not saying that Mustang enthusiasts wouldn't still want the V8, but mainstream buyers might opt for the more powerful, more fuel efficient motor, even if the V8 had more low end torque and better sound.