Time again for an I4?
7/3/08 | 07:36 AM
#41
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
7/3/08 | 07:37 AM
#42
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 17, 2004
Posts: 543
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis, IN
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.
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.
Ford did a study and figured that if you buy a Hybrid it'll take 12 years to pay back the initial investment, diesel took 7 years (i think), but they figured a turbo'd gas powered took 36 months. Granted this was probably more propaganda then fact, but i see how this could play out.
7/3/08 | 07:57 AM
#43
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 17, 2004
Posts: 543
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis, IN
7/3/08 | 08:02 AM
#44
Mach 1 Member
Joined: June 16, 2007
Posts: 621
Likes: 12
From: Hagerstown, MD
I am open-minded on new technology, but I also look at the heritage and what the Mustang means. It is true that technology today can do many things with the engines, but it seems that about 90-95% of the cars today on the road are 4’s. so what I was saying is that if you take away the v8 for the Mustang and replace with an I4 then what separates it from all the other normal cars out there today? It becomes “just another car” no matter what symbol you put on the front. I see no reason why Ford should offer a 4 cyl. In the Mustang, but continue with the 6 and 8. if you want this car to be your “stand out model” or “sports” car then you need to offer it as such. I guess I still remember the 2.3, 4 cyl from the fox-bodies. Sorry but they left a bad taste in my mouth so that is probably why I don’t want to see it in the Mustang again. Also, how many Mustang owners are multiple car owners? I don’t drive mine every day, I drive and Escape (which ironically gets around the same gas mileage as the Mustang and is a 2.3, I4.) If they do produce a Mustang in an I4, I will not be purchasing one, but will see what is offered in a larger engine. If a v8 is not offered in the next new model, I might not purchase a Mustang at all, but find a good “seasoned” Mustang from the 60’s or 90’s. We all have our own opinion on the future of the Mustang, but its up to Ford and what they do. I don’t want to see the image of the Mustang diminish to “just another car” status.
7/3/08 | 08:40 AM
#45
Bullitt Member
Joined: January 7, 2007
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
7/3/08 | 08:44 AM
#46
I always favor your discussions Rhumb, but have you seen the price of diesel these days. It's 4.80 here in Indy unless you are tax exempt, compared to 4.04 for unleaded.
Ford did a study and figured that if you buy a Hybrid it'll take 12 years to pay back the initial investment, diesel took 7 years (i think), but they figured a turbo'd gas powered took 36 months. Granted this was probably more propaganda then fact, but i see how this could play out.
Ford did a study and figured that if you buy a Hybrid it'll take 12 years to pay back the initial investment, diesel took 7 years (i think), but they figured a turbo'd gas powered took 36 months. Granted this was probably more propaganda then fact, but i see how this could play out.
But these annoying little realities aside ... I do think the potential is there for diesels to offer BOTH high economy and good performance. Too often, these are looked upon as either/or arguments. And think about it, so many Stangers fetishize about low-end torque and what better deliverer of that than a healthy turbo diesel churning out Freightliner-like pulling power about a dozen rpm above idle. As diesels are typically thought of in terms of either uber economy or pulling big loads, they are seen in very low power to weight ratio applications. I'd love to see that strong new diesel Ford's working on stuck in a Stang concept just to see how it works out.
7/3/08 | 09:42 AM
#47
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
I am open-minded on new technology, but I also look at the heritage and what the Mustang means. It is true that technology today can do many things with the engines, but it seems that about 90-95% of the cars today on the road are 4’s. so what I was saying is that if you take away the v8 for the Mustang and replace with an I4 then what separates it from all the other normal cars out there today? It becomes “just another car” no matter what symbol you put on the front.
I don't think anybody is saying take the V8 away from the Mustang. They're just saying offer a 4 cylinder because gas prices are so high these days. The Mustang has always been a volume seller, and the majority of Mustang sold have been the smaller engined ones. If they can't sell enough Mustangs to justify their existence, then there won't be a Mustang, 4, 6 or V8.
I see no reason why Ford should offer a 4 cyl. In the Mustang, but continue with the 6 and 8. if you want this car to be your “stand out model” or “sports” car then you need to offer it as such. I guess I still remember the 2.3, 4 cyl from the fox-bodies. Sorry but they left a bad taste in my mouth so that is probably why I don’t want to see it in the Mustang again.
That's your opinion, and that's fine, but what about the other thousands of potential Mustang buyers that Ford could have if the Mustang got better gas mileage? Ford is in this to make a profit and sell cars after all.
Also, how many Mustang owners are multiple car owners? I don’t drive mine every day, I drive and Escape (which ironically gets around the same gas mileage as the Mustang and is a 2.3, I4.) If they do produce a Mustang in an I4, I will not be purchasing one, but will see what is offered in a larger engine. If a v8 is not offered in the next new model, I might not purchase a Mustang at all, but find a good “seasoned” Mustang from the 60’s or 90’s. We all have our own opinion on the future of the Mustang, but its up to Ford and what they do. I don’t want to see the image of the Mustang diminish to “just another car” status.
Last edited by Vermillion06; 7/3/08 at 02:11 PM.
7/3/08 | 11:28 AM
#49
GT Member
Joined: January 4, 2007
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
From: Newtown, PA
Point #1: A turbocharged (maybe twin-turbo) 4cyl. CAN easily match the power output of the current 4.6 V8 in the S197.
Point #2: If any OEM has a small, high-tech engine that provides the same level of performance as one of their heavier, larger engines, they just might replace the bigger, heavier engine with the smaller, lighter one. It's been done before. Makes perfect sense.
Question #1: If Ford could give you a smaller, lighter engine that had equal or better performance, would you have a problem having it in your car?
Question #2: Why/why not?
Point #2: If any OEM has a small, high-tech engine that provides the same level of performance as one of their heavier, larger engines, they just might replace the bigger, heavier engine with the smaller, lighter one. It's been done before. Makes perfect sense.
Question #1: If Ford could give you a smaller, lighter engine that had equal or better performance, would you have a problem having it in your car?
Question #2: Why/why not?
7/3/08 | 11:42 AM
#50
Bullitt Member
Joined: April 28, 2008
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
**Sigh** From a purely practical perspective, it may be inevitable. If gas prices stay high, and there is every indication that they will, Ford will need to put a 4 in the Mustang to maintain sufficient production/sales volume. Not every Mustang enthusiast can afford an econobucket for daily driving and a 'Stang for pure pleasure.
While I, too, have seriously unpleasant memories of the Fox 4s, technology has changed significantly since then. If they do it right, it may not be too bad.
I earlier stated my opposition to the idea; that a 4, IMHO, didn't fit the Mustang image. But the real Mustang "image", I think, is bang-for-the-buck. As long as there are V8 'Stangs that the average Joe & Josephine can afford, and if the I4 keeps sales volume up enough to keep the V8s relatively cheap without the 4 models being complete crap, I'd have to (reluctantly) go along with it...
While I, too, have seriously unpleasant memories of the Fox 4s, technology has changed significantly since then. If they do it right, it may not be too bad.
I earlier stated my opposition to the idea; that a 4, IMHO, didn't fit the Mustang image. But the real Mustang "image", I think, is bang-for-the-buck. As long as there are V8 'Stangs that the average Joe & Josephine can afford, and if the I4 keeps sales volume up enough to keep the V8s relatively cheap without the 4 models being complete crap, I'd have to (reluctantly) go along with it...
7/3/08 | 12:16 PM
#51
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 17, 2004
Posts: 543
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis, IN
7/3/08 | 12:18 PM
#52
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 17, 2004
Posts: 543
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis, IN
I agree, the higher price of diesel fuel is a big part of the equation. However, if diesel fuel costs 20% more than gasoline, but your get 25% better mileage, you are coming out ahead (ignoring higher price for diesel motors). And yes, the American fuel infrastructure is pretty tapped out in terms of the capacity to produce more diesel fuel due to the different refining methods used as opposed to Europe.
But these annoying little realities aside ... I do think the potential is there for diesels to offer BOTH high economy and good performance. Too often, these are looked upon as either/or arguments. And think about it, so many Stangers fetishize about low-end torque and what better deliverer of that than a healthy turbo diesel churning out Freightliner-like pulling power about a dozen rpm above idle. As diesels are typically thought of in terms of either uber economy or pulling big loads, they are seen in very low power to weight ratio applications. I'd love to see that strong new diesel Ford's working on stuck in a Stang concept just to see how it works out.
But these annoying little realities aside ... I do think the potential is there for diesels to offer BOTH high economy and good performance. Too often, these are looked upon as either/or arguments. And think about it, so many Stangers fetishize about low-end torque and what better deliverer of that than a healthy turbo diesel churning out Freightliner-like pulling power about a dozen rpm above idle. As diesels are typically thought of in terms of either uber economy or pulling big loads, they are seen in very low power to weight ratio applications. I'd love to see that strong new diesel Ford's working on stuck in a Stang concept just to see how it works out.
7/3/08 | 12:30 PM
#53
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: November 7, 2006
Posts: 2,790
Likes: 51
From: Alberta
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?
Exactly!
The Lotus Elise & Exige are not 'Supercars'. They are sports cars.
The old Esprit... whilst closer to 'exoticness', in my opinion is a barely credible Supercar.
The Lotus Elise & Exige are not 'Supercars'. They are sports cars.
The old Esprit... whilst closer to 'exoticness', in my opinion is a barely credible Supercar.
I accept your opinion of not wanting an I4 Mustang, but I can't see your rational for how you classify a supercar.
Although I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. You either buy an I4 Mustang or you don't. If it is powerful and cheap enough, I could be convinced.
7/3/08 | 02:03 PM
#54
V6 Member
Joined: May 14, 2005
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
So a Lotus Esprit, Elise or Exige is not a supercar, but a Mustang is?
I accept your opinion of not wanting an I4 Mustang, but I can't see your rational for how you classify a supercar.
Although I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. You either buy an I4 Mustang or you don't. If it is powerful and cheap enough, I could be convinced.
I accept your opinion of not wanting an I4 Mustang, but I can't see your rational for how you classify a supercar.
Although I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. You either buy an I4 Mustang or you don't. If it is powerful and cheap enough, I could be convinced.
Anyway, back on subject...
I have nothing against a powerful I4 turbocharged engine. In the right car, something like a hot hatchback, it's fine. In a Mustang? Er... No.
As much as I think it is wrong, it wouldn't bother me if Ford did put an I4 between the Mustang's fenders. Just as long as they keep selling a value-for-money V8 GT for the rest of us. Not everyone buys a Mustang as a daily driver.
If Ford only sold the Mustang in I4 and V6 format... then they would instantly lose me as a buyer. I'll go elsewhere to get my V8 fix.
I don't believe the lies about the environment. The world we live on is constantly evolving... that's life. No one can tell me that in the past 200 years of the industrial revolution, etc. That we have 'killed' the planet, when this planet has been evolving for millions upon millions of years. If the whole world stopped emissions stone cold dead tomorrow. The polar ice caps will still melt. Shore line erosion will still happen. The temperatures will still climb, etc, etc.
Besides, in the US you are paying what $3 to $4 for a gallon of fuel?
I live in the UK and we are currently paying near £5 a gallon. In US dollars, that's nearly $10 at the current exchange rate!!!
Our fuel has always costed far more than fuel in the US. I would be laughing my socks off if I could pay what people in the US are paying for fuel!
Despite all this, I still choose to drive a V8 Mustang as my weekend fun car.
Ah yes. Lotus is not considered an 'exotic' over here. In my opinion, the Corvette is far more exotic than any Lotus. Lotus make good sports cars, but that's about it. They don't even make their own engines for the Elise or Exige! The engines used to come from Rover (an old British brand), now they come from Toyota... hardly exotic is it!?
To be brutally honest, in my opinion, the Elise and Exige are not that far removed from a kit car.
Cheers
Zek's
Last edited by zektor; 7/3/08 at 02:07 PM.
7/3/08 | 02:14 PM
#55
GTR Member
Joined: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,553
Likes: 11
From: England
I'm with you Zektor 
Half the appeal of my Mustang is its glorious V8 and the amazing sounds it makes. Without wishing to offend any V6 owners, I see the V6 as the "necessary evil" (ok, very over the top, but hopefully you know what I mean) that gets the sales and means the V8 GT is justifiable in Ford's product line-up.
Inline 4s are for everyday shopping cars. When turbocharged to produce 300bhp, I really can't see
the massive improvement in fuel-economy compared to the V8, never mind the V6.
In fact, my Mustang has a very similar MPG to my wife's 2 litre (straight 6) BMW 5 series.
Half the appeal of my Mustang is its glorious V8 and the amazing sounds it makes. Without wishing to offend any V6 owners, I see the V6 as the "necessary evil" (ok, very over the top, but hopefully you know what I mean) that gets the sales and means the V8 GT is justifiable in Ford's product line-up.
Inline 4s are for everyday shopping cars. When turbocharged to produce 300bhp, I really can't see
the massive improvement in fuel-economy compared to the V8, never mind the V6.
In fact, my Mustang has a very similar MPG to my wife's 2 litre (straight 6) BMW 5 series.
7/3/08 | 02:24 PM
#56
Post *****
Joined: October 9, 2007
Posts: 32,752
Likes: 159
Zek's
I've got to say I agree with your post. Especially global warming crap and the need for the V8. I think we think a lot alike. I would say that for some reason when Americans see $4 or $5 a gallon gas they go berserk and start trading in their SUV's and start buying little cars. I don't know why they do it. Most people are already upside down in their SUV and then take a huge beating on the trade to get more upside down on a rice burner. So for the Mustang to stay around they must produce it in an economical form. So have a stripped down 4 cyl. and then the base V8 and then the high hp V8. Besides for CAFE standards to be reached we are gonna need all the 4 cyl. cars Ford can make to raise the average MPG so we can have our lower mpg muscle car Mustangs. Unless oil drops by the end of the year to less than half of what it is now, this will be the future of the Mustang. However, if they yank the V8, I am gone, I will find something else, or just keep mine until it completely falls apart, rebuild it and then drive it some more. I will not do without a V8 in a Mustang, I don't care how many horses it has.
I've got to say I agree with your post. Especially global warming crap and the need for the V8. I think we think a lot alike. I would say that for some reason when Americans see $4 or $5 a gallon gas they go berserk and start trading in their SUV's and start buying little cars. I don't know why they do it. Most people are already upside down in their SUV and then take a huge beating on the trade to get more upside down on a rice burner. So for the Mustang to stay around they must produce it in an economical form. So have a stripped down 4 cyl. and then the base V8 and then the high hp V8. Besides for CAFE standards to be reached we are gonna need all the 4 cyl. cars Ford can make to raise the average MPG so we can have our lower mpg muscle car Mustangs. Unless oil drops by the end of the year to less than half of what it is now, this will be the future of the Mustang. However, if they yank the V8, I am gone, I will find something else, or just keep mine until it completely falls apart, rebuild it and then drive it some more. I will not do without a V8 in a Mustang, I don't care how many horses it has.
Last edited by 2k7gtcs; 7/3/08 at 02:50 PM.
7/3/08 | 02:47 PM
#57
V6 Member
Joined: May 14, 2005
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
I'm with you Zektor
Half the appeal of my Mustang is its glorious V8 and the amazing sounds it makes. Without wishing to offend any V6 owners, I see the V6 as the "necessary evil" (ok, very over the top, but hopefully you know what I mean) that gets the sales and means the V8 GT is justifiable in Ford's product line-up.
Inline 4s are for everyday shopping cars. When turbocharged to produce 300bhp, I really can't see
the massive improvement in fuel-economy compared to the V8, never mind the V6.
In fact, my Mustang has a very similar MPG to my wife's 2 litre (straight 6) BMW 5 series.
Half the appeal of my Mustang is its glorious V8 and the amazing sounds it makes. Without wishing to offend any V6 owners, I see the V6 as the "necessary evil" (ok, very over the top, but hopefully you know what I mean) that gets the sales and means the V8 GT is justifiable in Ford's product line-up.
Inline 4s are for everyday shopping cars. When turbocharged to produce 300bhp, I really can't see
the massive improvement in fuel-economy compared to the V8, never mind the V6.
In fact, my Mustang has a very similar MPG to my wife's 2 litre (straight 6) BMW 5 series.
Cheers
Zek's
7/3/08 | 02:50 PM
#58
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 17, 2004
Posts: 543
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis, IN
The globe has been warming up since the last ice age.
That said I am not so worried about ecological as I am economical.
I am glad that in the UK ( or at least my last visit to Glascow) you can take a bus to the train and go anywhere you like for cheap, just like I could in Japan when I live there. I would be happy if that were the case here in Indiana.
But its not and its not for most of the United States and sorry to the rest of the world, but that is where the mustang volumes go, so that is the market ford is going to cater to. If you had to take a 30 mile (each way) commute everyday in your mustang at $4-4.50 a gallon you would scream ( thats $3500 a year just to get to work). Since you don't it seems like the US is getting off cheap. It is the same discussion i get from my japanese friends all the time (although they are only paying $6 per gallon).
Besides you have to pay for your medical treatments somehow
That said, it is not your fault that the USA developed a very complex and convenient highway system instead of a very economic rail and public transit system.
That said I am not so worried about ecological as I am economical.
I am glad that in the UK ( or at least my last visit to Glascow) you can take a bus to the train and go anywhere you like for cheap, just like I could in Japan when I live there. I would be happy if that were the case here in Indiana.
But its not and its not for most of the United States and sorry to the rest of the world, but that is where the mustang volumes go, so that is the market ford is going to cater to. If you had to take a 30 mile (each way) commute everyday in your mustang at $4-4.50 a gallon you would scream ( thats $3500 a year just to get to work). Since you don't it seems like the US is getting off cheap. It is the same discussion i get from my japanese friends all the time (although they are only paying $6 per gallon).
Besides you have to pay for your medical treatments somehow
That said, it is not your fault that the USA developed a very complex and convenient highway system instead of a very economic rail and public transit system.
7/3/08 | 02:57 PM
#59
GTR Member
Joined: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,553
Likes: 11
From: England
There is an alternative......a number of UK Mustang owners don't run them as everyday cars. I run a '94 Ford Mondeo (the Mercury Contour, to you, I believe) for the daily commute. 40+ mpg, I'm not scared to leave it in public car parks etc etc. That's where 4-cylinder engines should reside
BUT, I do realise that without strong sales, we might not have a Mustang at all. If that means a 4-cylinder, so be it. Just make sure the V8 option is always available. I think even Ford learnt that lesson back in the mid 70's.
BUT, I do realise that without strong sales, we might not have a Mustang at all. If that means a 4-cylinder, so be it. Just make sure the V8 option is always available. I think even Ford learnt that lesson back in the mid 70's.
7/3/08 | 03:00 PM
#60
V6 Member
Joined: May 14, 2005
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Zek's
I've got to say I agree with your post. Especially global warming crap and the need for the V8. I think we think a lot alike. I would say that for some reason when Americans see $4 or $5 a gallon gas they go berserk and start trading in their SUV's and start buying little cars. I don't know why they do it. Most people are already upside down in their SUV and then take a huge beating on the trade to get more upside down on a rice burner. So for the Mustang to stay around they must produce it in an economical form. So have a stripped down 4 cyl. and then the base V8 and then the high hp V8. Besides fore CAFE standards to be reached we are gonna need all the 4 cyl. cars Ford can make to raise the average MPG so we can have our lower mpg muscle car Mustangs. Unless oil drops by the end of the year to less than half of what it is now, this will be the future of the Mustang. However, if they yank the V8, I am gone, I will find something else, or just keep mine until it completely falls apart, rebuild it and then drive it some more. I will not do without a V8 in a Mustang, I don't care how many horses it has.
I've got to say I agree with your post. Especially global warming crap and the need for the V8. I think we think a lot alike. I would say that for some reason when Americans see $4 or $5 a gallon gas they go berserk and start trading in their SUV's and start buying little cars. I don't know why they do it. Most people are already upside down in their SUV and then take a huge beating on the trade to get more upside down on a rice burner. So for the Mustang to stay around they must produce it in an economical form. So have a stripped down 4 cyl. and then the base V8 and then the high hp V8. Besides fore CAFE standards to be reached we are gonna need all the 4 cyl. cars Ford can make to raise the average MPG so we can have our lower mpg muscle car Mustangs. Unless oil drops by the end of the year to less than half of what it is now, this will be the future of the Mustang. However, if they yank the V8, I am gone, I will find something else, or just keep mine until it completely falls apart, rebuild it and then drive it some more. I will not do without a V8 in a Mustang, I don't care how many horses it has.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm with you. I want the V8 no matter what. I don't care if they made a 500 bhp I4 turbo GT500 and the regular GT had a V8. I'd still want the V8 GT!
Why? Because a 500 bhp I4 turbo wouldn't last 5 minutes... that's why.
At least with a torquey naturally aspirated V8 you can get on it all day long and it will still come back for more.
Mmm. Is the CAFE average calculated across the entire fleet. So the average of all the cars that Ford offers for sale needs to be 35 MPG by 2020, is that right?
If so, why can't Ford offer for sale an absolutely hideous roller skate of a car that has a hybrid 800cc (50ci?) 3 cylinder engine / electric motor that get's about 110 MPG odd. Hardly any one would buy such a woeful car, but heck... it might keep the fleet average above 35 MPG. Surely Ford cannot be blamed if no-one buys it. They just have to offer it for sale. Is this feasible?
Cheers
Zek's