Or how about a button from the factory to switch between Econ and Sport. Because quite frankly I don't always need all the power available to me at all times. Like the morning commute; between traffic and cops I'm just cruising at 50-60 mph. Probably takes all of 80hp to maintain that speed.

 

The trick would be to stay out of boost. In the '86 Subaru RX turbo that I had in early 90's , I could drive in stop and go traffic normally, not flooring it and not driving like a grandma neither, just going with the traffic flow and never get the boost light to turn on. Gas mileage was pretty much the same as any other 4 banger car of the time. But then if I drove it under boost, gas mileage wasn't so great, but it was a lot more fun. Man, the little green boost light in the dash sure was bad for gas mileage

 

I traded my 2000 Mustang V6 (3.8) for a 2008 MazdaSpeed3. If Ford lightened the pony a little, and offered the same type performance as the MS3, I would defintely be interested in an I-4 Mustang. The MS3 with the manual 6-speed, is nearly as quick as my 2006 GT automatic and is a lot of fun to drive.

It is also far more economical than the 2000 V6 it replaced. I regularly get 26-27 MPG commuting and even when I use the loud pedal enthusiastically, the mileage hovers around 23 MPG. (The best I've gotten so far was 28 MPG, the lowest, 22 MPG.)

 

Ford had the SVO Mustang & the T-bird Turbo Coupe back in the 80's. Mopar had turbo 4s in almost every car they sold in back in the Eighties, and performance cars like the GLH, Shelby Charger and CSX. Mopar had the first production VNT turbo. These cars could run with the V8s of their time. They already figured out how to beat "American Muscle" 20 years ago, way before the Japanese and Germans did. The trouble was, nobody cared when they could get a V8 for the same price or less.

 

The 1980's Ford and Chrysler 4 cylinder engines were a product of their times. The Ford 2.3L engine was essentially the same engine that Ford put in the Pinto. Chrysler's fours and turbo fours were what Mopar was stuck with when Chrysler got bailed out of bankruptcy [yes, the 5.2L V8 soldiered on as well]. These engines were not state of the art even when they were new. They were just the most readily available to Ford and Chrysler during the early eighties fuel crunch. Chrysler's 2.2L got the job done but was nothing to write home about. Ford squeezed a lot out of the old 2.3L, especially in the SVO, but at the end of the day it was still a 1974 engine. I'd rather see a fuel efficient naturally aspirated six offered in the base Mustang over a turbo four.

 

Agree. Ford should pursue a sporty coupe with the EcoBoost 4, but it should be a sub-Mustang model. 6's and 8's only for the Mustang. Not that the engine couldn't handle it, especially if Ford put the 'Stang on a decent diet, but SVO notwithstanding, I just don't think a 4, however potent, fits the image.

 

The technology used in the engine control electronics in conjunction with the turbos was state of the art at the time. Carbureted vehicles were still being produced at the time and EFI was just starting to become common. The basic building blocks (fuel injection, turbos, intercooling, computers) had been around for years, but using these building blocks in combination was new, just like direct injection and turbocharging technology have been around for years but very few engines use them combined like they are in Ecoboost.

The engines themselves weren't ancient . The Mopar 2.2 debuted in 1981 so it was a brand new design at the time. the 2.3L Ford Lima engine was only 10 years old in 1984. The current Ford Mod V8 is already 17 years old.

 

My SVO 2.3 Turbo runs really well, but it doesn't hold a candle to my GT. It also doesn't get much better gas mileage either.

I'd be all for a kickin' 4 banger in a new bodied Mustang (think re-skinned RX-8) if it were economical and powerful.

 

As a thinking outside the box exercise, what about a "performance diesel?" I know, sounds like an oxymoron, but more and more European cars are starting to show that diesels can be both economical and yet have good (great?) performance. Sure, a different style of performance than high winding small gas motors or big gas V8s, but providing lots of speed in their own, relentless, torquey way.

IIRC, BMW has a turbo-diesel six that hits 60 in the low sixes or something, tops out near 150 and yet gets something crazy in mileage, something like the mid 40s on the highway and high 20s in town.

Isn't Ford coming out with a new diesel V8 in the 4 liter range with something over 250 hp and a trillion lb/ft of torque at about 2 rpm or something? Would be interesting to drop that thing in a Stang and see how it works.

 

I'm not saying one thing that makes a huge difference but there are little things that can be done. mostly due to cost of item to how much it will help. but they still do exist.

things like CGI engine block, actuated controlled valves, and more extensive things like the hydrolic hybrid.

 

Are you honestly trying to convey the idea that having an inline 4 equals being rice?

Rice is the advertising performance that is not there for the sake of showing off. an inline 4 does not equate insta-rice. There are plenty of V6 and V8 MUSTANGS that have been riced out.

You're not very openminded are you?

 

The last thing we need in the US is more diesel vehicles.
Have you checked the price of diesel lately, it's 15% to 20% more than gasoline.
US refineries are configured to maximize the amount of gasoline that is produced from a barrel of oil. This has resulted in a shortage of diesel and fuel oil. Besides being expensive to retrofit refineries to make more diesel, since US refineries are running at nearly 100% capacity taking any of them off line to rebuild them will create further shortages and price increases.

 

Apples and oranges. The Ford 4.6L V8 is a great engine. The Ford 2.3L really wasn't. The Chrysler 2.2L was abismal.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not slamming four cylinder engines. They're great in motorcycles and the right cars. I just don't think the current Mustang is one of those cars.

 

Despite my obvious preference for a V8 powered Mustang, I think we have to be realistic about the current economic situation and realize that in order for the Mustang to survive and have the opportunity to be offered in V8 guise, a return to an I4 as the standard engine in the base Mustang is going to be required. Face it, most Mustang drivers are interested in the Mustang's image, comfort and convenience features that are suitable for the every day commute all wrapped up in a peppy sporty car wrapper. They aren't interested in tire burning HP and torque. In addition, a 10% improvement in MPG for the base Mustang boosts Ford's overall CAFE ratings and will allow greater flexibility in producing higher HP V8 models for the core group of Mustang enthusiasts that demand them.

 

I love the idea of a great sounding DOHC V6 making around 300hp, but a GTDi four that accomplishes the same has appeal too.

V6 potential advantages:
1: The potential for a great exhaust note.
2: Smoother operation.
3: More upscale image than a four, even a turbo four.

GTDi I4 potential advantages:
1: Killer low end torque compared to the V6.
2: Almost certainly will cost less to produce than the six.
3: Superior fuel economy in daily driving.


As I said I like what each brings to the table. That said, after giving this considerable thought I think Ford is more likely to give us a GTDi four that actually realizes all the possible advantages that come with that combination, with the likelihood being greater that they would short change a six cylinder model in some areas than the GTDi four. But that is just my opinion.

 

4 cylinder turbo is fine. I wouldn't get one, because I'm keeping my '07 till the pry it out of my cold dead hands. But Mustang can certainly live on on 4 and 8 cylinders. Just as long as there is an 8 in some form. If I bought a non GT I wouldn't care if it was 4 or 6 as I would probably be buying for mileage.

 

NO WAY!


I don't want to see an I4 in the Mustang ever again. That's not what the Mustang is about. The Mustang is the blue collar workers supercar. Since when has a true supercar sported an I4?

If they want to make it more economical. Just make the V6 smaller in capacity. With the right amount of turbocharging, they could shove a 2.5 litre engine under the hood and easily make 250 bhp out of it. Hell, they should be able to wring the current V6's 210 bhp fairly easily out of 2.5 litres if done right. The European Duratec V6 is a proven platform. It would fit the bill perfectly.

For everyone else who isn't bothered by the cost of fuel, the V8 should remain. There is of course the Mustang buyer who would not entertain anything less than a V8. I am one of these people. Yes, I think the cost of fuel is expensive at the moment, if you use your GT (and up) as a daily driver, I can understand that it would cost a fair bit to run. But my Mustang is a weekend/fun car. So, I don't care how much the fuel costs... Nothing is going to stop me nailing the throttle to hear that V8 thunder under the hood.

The 2005 Mustang is the first Mustang I've ever purchased. I like anything up to 1973... but after that, I've got to say that the Mustang looked terrible. Even the late 2004 models didn't do it for me. Nowhere muscular looking enough, in fact nothing that special to look at. A chassis from the dark ages didn't help either.

But when I first clapped eyes on the 2005 model, I just had to have it. This model actually got me out of a Corvette. I had two Corvette's previous to the Mustang. The new Mustang has the V8 of course, but now it had the looks and a modern chassis to go with it. It ticked all the right boxes.

So Ford, forget the I4. And please don't numb down the styling on the Mustang. It's got to remain aggressive looking, and it must have a high performance GT WITH a V8 under the hood - ALWAYS!

I have a 2005 model Mustang currently. And I am looking forward to a 5.0 litre 400bhp V8 in the next refresh. If the car delivers, I will definitely be replacing my current car with this car.

So, keep it lean, keep it mean... don't make it green!

Zek's

 

The mustang was never, by any stretch of the word, a supercar. The ford GT is a supercar. a mustang GT is quite a bit short of earning that title

It is a blue collar sports car; a pony car if you will. but theres nothing that isn't "blue collar" about an I4. If a turbo 4 can accomplish what a V6 can, making decent power, low weight and good economy, what is wrong with putting that in the car? Hell if anything, the I4 is MORE of a blue collar sort of thing out of its sheer affordabilty and cost of use

no one said anything about removing the V8 either, just adding an I4 as an option on the lower end of the spectrum. If you aren't going to entertain less than a V8 msutang for yourself anyway, why do you care what else is offered? it doesnt really apply to you

The styling also has nothing to do with this topic.

additionally, there is nothign wrong with a car being more "green" than it used to so long as it performs as it is expected to. I don't see why being green is such a bad thing

your post comes off as ignorant and exhibits a "holier than thou" mentality. might want to look into that

have a nice day

 

Jeez, who rattled your cage?

'holier than thou'? - I haven't referenced any one person in my post, unlike you. I have though, made an opinion... which is what a forum is all about!?

I believe the post subject was "Time again for an I4?" - note the question mark on the end. The poster is questioning other forum members for their opinion. Which is exactly what I delivered. By all means, you can disagree with my post if that is your will. But, please don't make it personal.

Anyway, back on subject...

Totally agree - the Mustang is not a Supercar. But, I do believe it has been labeled as the common man's Supercar long before I ever put fingers to keyboard. If we really want to be pedantic, the Mustang isn't really a sports car either. Generally, in V8 format, the Mustang is in keeping with the definition of a muscle car.

For all those people that think an I4 turbocharged engine will do wonders for the Mustang's green credentials. Have you looked at the MPG figures for a 4 cylinder turbocharged car that makes reasonable power? A nearly 300 bhp Subaru Impreza's MPG figures are shocking for a 2.0 litre engine. So much so, that you might as well have a V8 instead.

So, maybe the I4 goes in without turbocharging. The car will then be impossibly slow, because it will be woefully underpowered for the weight. Not only that, but the Mustang will be further ridiculed by owners of the competition (when they arrive). If you want green, buy an I4 Focus.

We all know that 'green issues' are a farce. Another avenue for our Governments to make money out of us.

No. I want the Mustang to stay as it is. In tradition with the best the Mustang got during the late sixties. Fitting an I4 will be another low point in the Mustang's history, and entirely unnecessary. Ford, if they put their minds to it... CAN make a 210 bhp normally aspirated 2.5 litre V6 work in this car. They CAN also make the current 4.6 litre V8 perform better, with better economy than it has now. In fact I don't know why they do not do this, rather than fitting the 5.0 litre. But that is for another post.

You say my comments on the cars looks are off topic. But really they are not. Because if the I4 does ever get placed under the hood of the current Mustang, you can bet your bottom dollar that the next Mustang redesign will be smaller, less aggressive and less powerful. Fitting the I4 to the Mustang will be the beginning of a slippery slope into mediocrity for the Mustang platform.

I for one, would not want to wait another 30 years or so for the Mustang to find it's heritage again. Would you?

Cheers
Zek's