Topnotch

...They don't have to do anything at all about the Mustang as long as they boost the other models MPG across the board. They could bring out Hybrids, small displacement engines and Flex Fuel models on their bread and butter cars.

Every_Mn

I think people are blowing this way out of proportion.

2020 is still 13 years away. 13 years ago Fox bodies will still fairly new cars. Technology doesn't progress linearly- the better it gets, the more capability it has to get better, and faster.

I don't think this will be a problem, or if it is, not a big one.

Moosetang

This is exactly my reaction. There's no reason to believe the Mustang, or even the Camaro + Challenger for that matter, should be adversely affected if the high-volume vehicles are lifted above the limit. If every model other than the Mustang is above the line, the Mustang can still exist a few points under it without bringing the company's average down.

tacbear

My 1985 Mustang GT had a 2.73 rear end and weighed 3025 pounds with a full tank of gas and I kept a book of every time I got gas. It got between 28 and 31 mpg on the Highway and 22 to 24 mpg in the city. With slicks I ran a 13.89@100 mph (exhaust, carb. spacer, K and N filter, Under Drive Pullies, all syntetic lubes).

I know Ford could build a 3200# RWD Mustang with 350 hp and a 6 speed tranny that could get 20 city/28+ highway if they wanted to!!

V10

Your 1985 Mustang would never pass current crash standards or emission requirements.

codeman94

Ouch!

hi5.0

13 years may as well be tomorrow as far as the "Big 3" are concerned. Using Ford as an example, How long has the Hurricane/Boss/whatever engine been in development? GM's LS-series V8's have already gone through a few evolutions. Don't even get me started on the Fox/SN95 chassis... the Panther platform, or the US Focus vs. the C1-based Euro Focus, Mazda 3, and Volvo S40. The techonology is there and getting better faster, the problem is the pace at which it is implemented.

GTJOHN

Ford has already stated that they plan to use lighter materials in the future. But, its a process that has to happen gradually over time. Technological advancements, cost(s) and Vehicle Safety aren't going to happen over night. Plus, SUV's & Trucks are going to have to go through the same evolution.

Knight

E85 is only 15% gasoline. hense the name Ethanol 85... 85% ethenol.

MrClean

Correct 15% gas, and up to 85% denatured Ethanol (ie so the rednecks don't drink it!)
Vehicle must be designated "flex-fuel" to burn it...

MunkeyOnTheLoose-witha5.0

To Topnotch, you make a good point with the window sticker from 85'....but the funny thing is, the major Gas mileage boost came in 87' with the good ole' sequential FI that everyone loved. I spent alot of time at www.mustanggt.org and alot of the guys on there have gotten(on a stock vehicle with a proper tune up) 20-23 in the city and 30+ on the highway....now for the highest numbers they were using a vacuum gauge and constantly monitored and maintained proper vacuum....but it was still having to have something as beastly as the SEFI 5.0 at the time putting out those numbers. Now, a Notchback would result in better mileage with the weight reduction but...still....it's all in the technology and the driver's whose foot can or cannot stay out of the gas pedal.....

and also...for the poster with the 85'.....amazing mileage! My 84' gets about 10 in the city and 15 on the highway...runs on premium....hence it doesnt get driven much. Needs lots of new stuff....

97svtgoin05gt

SEFI was introduced in '86. I had one.

MunkeyOnTheLoose-witha5.0

yea i know, but something was different. I dont remember, its been awhile since i've been out of the fox chassis game......anyways, my point was that in 87' the MPG went through the roof.

yea, something in my head is saying its different. im thinking the HP was down from 85's.....210.....oh yea it was like 205 or something and the 86' had notched pistons which make it a ***** to mod sometimes.....

its FI, yea, but my mind was differentiating it from 87'....the new stuff for 87' gave it 225 and made it more effecient. i think thats along the lines of what i was going for.....you are right sir, SEFI was introduced in 86....but the way it interacted with the motor was different. good catch.

Black331

Yup, my 86 once got about 30 miles per gallon on a road trip with 4 people in the car and that the back hatch filled to the roof with gear..

bob

Tru'dat, its Corporate Average Fuel Economy, not Car Average Fuel Economy. The Mustang could get a fuel swilling 1,000 hp 700 cubic big block getting .00000000000000001 miles per gallon, but as long as the average for the fleet is 35 mpg. then it doesn't matter. Besides, the V8 cars are enthusiast offerings and in the minority.

Then again there are gonna probably dark times ahead when owning V8 power will make you little more than a child molester in the eyes of the rightous.

bob

Yep, the fox cars are frigg'n tin cans compared to the current car. I was involved in a minor collision with my 91 and even though it was a glancing hit at low speed, the force was still good enough to create a tear around the floor pan in the vicinity of the driver's front seat.

m05fastbackGT

Yea, for the lack of grammer and punctuation skills ! As you're sentence should have read.. 13 years ago! Fox bodies WERE still fairly new cars, not WILL still..Meanwhile, you also over did it with the comma's by placing one of them, just before "and" while placing yet another after, OR IF IT is, NOT A BIG ONE, in which should have been followed by a question mark..With that being said..I suggest that you take a good look in the mirror at yourself ! before posting criticizing remarks, towards another member's punctuation skills..

Every_Mn

I don't know what in ****'s name you're talking about. Where in the hell is there a question there? Do you see a question? Because I don't. Also, you're completely missing the point of my post.

I only criticize people when the dont capatalize there i and dont use puncation, properly. and use run-on sentences

m05fastbackGT

Quote:
Originally Posted by m05fastbackGT
You're slowing down the accessories by only 25% Chris ! which really has no affect on the water pump itself, in which there have been absolutely no cooling issues nor problems whatsoever.. and the real advantage of the Steeda pulleys are ? their designed and engineered to Ford specifications as a direct result of their partnership in Ford's technology transfer program and are therefore completely safe.. This is what in the hell I'm talking about.. And I understood your point just fine..As for my run-on sentences are concerned ? I'll be the first to admit that my punctuation skills are at times rusty and far from being perfect..However, the last thing I need ? is for someone to post wisea$$ remarks, as I'm fully aware of my mistakes and what I need to do in order to correct them..Therefore if you're unable of posting your remarks, in a constructive manner ? then don't bother posting anything at all if you find my posts as so offensive..It's as plain and simple as that..And besides, your punctuation skills aren't exactly perfect either..But then again, none of us are perfect to begin with..

LBJay

Well there is this little kicker in the Senate Bill.

Quote:

The current standard is 27.5 mpg for passenger automobiles and 20.7 mpg for light trucks, a classification that also includes sport utility vehicles (SUVs).

The Automakers have been skirting the CAFE by have two standards, one for cars and one for light trucks. Combining them all into one will have a BIG effect.