If gas prices continue to spiral out of control GM has rumored changing the Cameo's base model engine to a turbocharged, direct injected 2.0 litter 4 cylinder putting out 260 horses. My question is, how many here feel this is a good idea and think Ford should one again offer a 4 banger to power our beloved Mustang?

Now, i know most of you are probably thinking about the underpowered 4 cylinder Mustang crapfest of the the 70's and 80's but those days are thankfully dead and gone, so hear me out.

To stay competitive, Ford would have to stay in the same horsepower ballpark as GM meaning 50 more hp than the current base model V6. Ummm, yeah that would be a good thing. and the technology, i imagine, couldn't be too hard to find. i would start by looking under the hood of a 263 hp Mazdaspeed. and finally, if Ford cuts weight from their vehicle fleet as they have claimed, that should include the Mustang, and would agree nicely with a turbo four, resulting in very nice balance of power, efitiancy, and style.

i am in no way suggesting that the the V8 or even the V6 engines should be replaced, those engines are at the core of the Mustang's heritage and will be around as long the car is. i am merely suggesting an expansion of options to expand the market in these, lets say, expensive times.

so those are my thoughts, what are yours?

 

I certainly wouldn't mind, especially if it isn't an anemic powerplant.

the Mazdaspeed 263hp engine would be a sweet little engine in a bare bones, weight reduced newer mustang

 

everyone is talking about going to a turbo 4 but seriously how much are you really going to save.
the current v6 is capable of 26mpg. with at turbo 4 you might increase that to 28mpg or maybe 29mpg.
in the whole scheme of things is that really a savings??? you can save that much mpg just by changing your driving style. i dont think its worth the effert. the automakers are saying that a 4 will be more fuel efficient, but they are just blowing a bunch of hot air. i had a 2001 saturn that got almost 44mpg! they dogged the engines so much in the last couple years that the same engine from saturn now produces a whopping 30mpg. what a savings!!!! no more 4's for mustang. only 6 or 8's

 

Think about what you just said. Realize you're turning your nose up at a potential 10% increase in EPA rating. I seriously doubt anyone would consider that small potatoes.

 

i'm for it. I had my share of turbo four imports, subarus and mitsubishis, and while you may smirk at the mileage stated above. on the interstate my awd talon got 34 mpg, while running 14.2 at the 1/4 track (granted it had minor mods). Remember that at cruising speeds turbos, unlike superchargers, are basically idle, which means you can basically achieve the mileage of a N/A four (give or take a little).

BUT! it would have to be a powerful four turbo. As long as it comes in more powerful then the current V6, it has potential to be a winner. Also, the image of turbos has come a long way since the 70's and 80's. They used to be viewed as troublesome and costly, while in the modern market, most manufactures have some mainstream turbo varient (albeit not the big three????).

If they built it I would probably pick one up. As long as I can still keep my 05 GT.

 

True the Mazdaspeed has a 263hp turbo I4 but look at the EPA numbers (OLD testing method):

4.0L V6 Mustang: EPA city/highway driving: 19/28 mpg
2.3L Turbo DISI I4 Mazdaspeed6: EPA city driving: 20 mpg EPA highway driving: 26 mpg

Now I know it's not apples to apples because of differences in weight (mazda is ~150lbs heavier) and the friction of AWD. However a turbo I4 is not the magic bullet for EPA numbers.

That being said, Ford is working on twin turbo engines not the single turbo like Mazda. I have absolutely no idea what that will mean for MPG. If Ford can get a Mustang to do 0-60 in less than 7 seconds and have a HWY rating over 32 MPG with the NEW testing method, I think it would sell.

 

I would love to see a new SVO. I have always loved the SVO, and might even consider getting one.

The only problem I see with it is the powerplant wont be anything like the old 2.3, 30 psi chugging demon engine from yore. That engine was a beast.

Where is SVOpaul when you need him!

 

Ecoboost

 

You boost mpg from 26 to 29 to get an increase mpg of 11.5 percent. Would you like an 11.5 percent increase in pay? How about an 11.5 percent decrease in utility bills?

 

The big gains with an i4 would be in city mpg.

 

absolutely, positively....the continued use of the archaic 4.0 liter cast iron block v6 is an albatross for the entry level mustang....in fact, the base engine should be a mild turbo four with a hotter version making 240/250 hp and then the gt would have a twin turbo v6 putting out somewhere around 300hp...with an upgraded version for the specialty models.

ford would be better served if they took every cent they will spend on the 2010 and put it into their drivetrains, then people could have their cake and eat it too.

jackg
06 sts6

 

Ford has stated they can pump out easily 275 hp from a TT I4 EcoBoost motor, and have room to work for more power. Wouldn't mind it in the car at all, especially if the weight isn't overboard.

 

i understand what you are saying. yes, we would all like an 11% increase in pay. i guess what i am trying to point out is that the auto makers have the technology to create a powerful engine and still stay with a 6 or an 8 and get the mileage you want. yes, i understand that the CAFE regulations will have an effect, but i stated couple months ago in another forum here that Ford can "dog" the v8 they put into the Mustang to achieve their CAFE numbers, knowing that us the Mustang true will modify them to our liking. with the computers in the cars now you have unlimited modifications with them. i just think that all the talk about the turbo I4 is over-rated and that they can build something that will achieve the "muscle car" liking. i.e. why do i have to sacrifice my muscle v8 in a mustang for a riced-out i4? not saying it literally but think about it. if all the cars nowadays have 4's then are we all ricers??

 

I think you're kidding yourself. Automakers CAN'T simply wave their magic wands and make big-power V8's super fuel-efficient. Certainly not to the degree that can be achieved using a smaller engine. And they're certainly not going to achieve their CAFE standards on ANY specific engine simply by de-tuning, or "*******" it as you called it. Technology has come a long way, and these days, it IS possible to achieve big power (reliably) from a relatively small engine. Both Ford and GM WILL be moving into smaller, lighter engines, and they WILL most likely find their way into cars like the Mustang and Camaro.

 

It is true there are technologies to increase mileage that they do not implement right away do to not needing the increase and cost that would go into it.

But it will only go so far. with all things equal in cars weight drivetrain and such the 4cyl will automatically get better mileage due to less parts to take energy to move.

 

Sounds like a conspiracy theorist to me. Bet you believe they're sitting on miracle carbs that would allow a big V8 to get 80mpg too.

 

I love V8s as much as anyone and I think there should always be a v8 available in a Mustang, but something like a 275 hp Ecoboost 4 cylinder base model would be a really good thing for keeping the Mustang alive in the current age of high gas prices & tightening CAFE regulations.

They could offer a V8 in an SVT Cobra model, with a TwinForce/Ecoboost V6 with 415 HP and 400 ft-lbs of torque like what was in the MKR concept in the Mustang GT.

 

While I wouldn't rule out a version of Mazda's turbo DI 2.3, making 263 in MS3 guise and 280 when it was/is in the MS6, I would tend to want to keep the Stang six cylinders and above, for character, heritage (yes, I know, there have been 4 banger Stangs) and distinctiveness. Replace the creaking 4.0 V6 with the nice new Duratec 35 or 37 with 275-300 ponies as the base motor. This would reinforce the Stang's image as a midsized performance coupe yet ought to get better mileage.

For the lower end of things, Ford really ought to bring back a sub-Stang performance coupe, ala, the Probe or Capri. Make that thing FWD/AWD, smaller, lighter, more efficient and perhaps more contemporary in character, as was the Probe. 280hp in a 2800lb coupe would make for a real rocket, albeit one of a very distinct character from the Stang and appealing to additional markets (tuner, Euro crowd).

The Probe, especially the 2nd gen, was very successful, garnering all sorts of press accolades and selling well. It was a delightful car to drive and own -- I know, I've still got mine. Sadly, as is typical of Ford, they let this little gem whither on the vine in this very competitive market and unsurprisingly after a few years, sales wilted. They did replace it with the Mecury Cougar, but that had somewhat awkward styling and little of the driving character of the Probe GT.

Maybe Ford in a shocking outburst of good common sense will bring over RS versions of the upcoming Fiesta and Focus coupes, which would fill that niche very nicely.

 

Are you talking I4 turbo, or N/A?

If turbo then not that i have ever experienced????

City MPG consists of stops and goes, a place where turbos tend to spool and unspool. in other words they are typically experiencing some sort of boost, more air requires more fuel.

All my turbos excelled on HWY, but drank gas in the city. If you can speed up without producing boost then the mileage would be OK, but I never wanted to only depress the gas pedal a 16th of an inch.

 

I love statements like these. It shows how truly narrow minded people can be. Seriously, who came out with four cylinders first???

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dsidevalve.jpg
177ci Model T I4

Why is a four cylinder rice? Because the japanese or germans figured out how to beat "american muscle" with better technology. Why Hate? Ford is applying this technology across the board to make four cylinder engines that are economic and powerful, to make six cylinder engines that are incredibly powerful yet moderately economic, and eight cylinder engines that are insane.

Sounds like a great plan to me. If no one ever improved or evolved anything we would still be using the 177cu engine pictured above.

If it performs better, costs similar, and is more economical then sign me up.

BUT,, like above. if it is insanely expensive, or a dog (doubtful) then I actually agree, drop the concept.