First off, I must say that I love my V8. And hope that ford keeps it around

But
I don't have a crystal ball, but I am going to bet that for all the V8 only customers Ford would lose they will more then make it up with people that have wanted a mustang, but didn't get one because even the V6 really doesn't get that great of gas mileage. We must face the fact that the mustang is a volume car and the majority of the mustangs are base engines. We, the enthusiasts, are the overwhelming minority.30/70 for the previous stang, and 45/55 for the current

But seriously, here is my opinion and I hope I don't get flamed for it. Drop the stupid V6 and replace it with the turbo 4. I mean 210 horses out of a 4.0 and with those 210 you only get hwy mpg of 26, REALLY? and that is the estimate, which granted is more accurate after the changes, but still unreliable. nearly a decade ago the eagle talons had 2.0 turbo w/o DI that put out 210 horses and got nearly 30 mpg. with the small engine they only weighed about 3000 lbs. Couple that with DI and updated technology and you could easily have a 240 hp base mustang getting 30mpg.

I understand the "lets keep the V8" crew. Is there a "Keep the V6" crew??

Who knows.

 

Ha! Ha! This is quite funny... You think the UK transport system is good. Trust me, our public transport system is diabolical. It's expensive and seriously over-stretched. Our Government is always banging on about us 'getting out of our cars' but the truth of the matter is that if we all did get out of our cars. The public transport would be crushed. Then they would have a small war on their hands.

I do a 32 mile commute to work and back every day (round trip). The car I use for work is a 1.6 litre (100ci?) Citroen Xsara Picasso. It's a hideous French car. It has nowhere near the performance of a Mustang. It gets an average of about 35 MPG. Even in this car, it would cost me the equivalent of $2,600 a year on fuel. My mileage is just over half of what you are suggesting. If I was doing the journey you suggest, it would cost me $5000 a year. And that is in a POS underpowered tin can of a car. So, $3500 a year for the same journey, AND in a Mustang seems like a superb bargain to me!

Cheers
Zek's

 

No, that's not right. It is based on size of car. For example as it is currently configured Porshe is screwed, because their car size classifies it as a compact meaning it must get 35 mpgs. The subaru STI and mitsu EVO are screwed as well for the same reasons. There is no performance class. Plus if I recall right your fleet average is based on volume. so if you don't sell = don't produce any then it wont help. And yes they would blame the automakers for intentionally trying to skew the data and we would be without ford and without the mustang.

Hence the major moves automakers are finally taking. This one is not just an easy work around.

 

My point is thus proven. You couldn't do it in your mustang, so it must be nice to have such a job as to be able to afford both a commuter car and play car. Thus proves you lack of understanding of the current topic.

BTW, Why don't you use the transit? It worked quite well. albeit outdated and smelling funny?

 

Yes, there is that. I think this is what happened in '74 when the Mustang II hit the scene. Suddenly, people that normally wouldn't entertain a Mustang... started to buy them because of the new fuel economy that it offered.

So, maybe Ford can increase sales by offering a low powered I4 in the Mustang. I'm talking unturbocharged, as what is the point? You might as well buy the bigger engined car if it's performance that you are after.

So, maybe Ford should offer a normally aspirated I4. It will be dog slow... but maybe it will satisfy the type of owner that wants the look of a Mustang (and cheaper insurance), but who is not interested in performance at all. The V8 should always be offered for the Mustang elite. And maybe the V6 should remain as well.

As long as the Mustang's aggressiveness is not toned down to meet the constraints of an I4 platform. I will be happy. I like the imposing size that the car is now, I don't want to see a smaller version of the car. And I certainly don't want it to start looking like an econobox.

Ford has the Mustang's heritage to uphold. If they lose sight of this (just when they got it so right with the 2005 Mustang), I will be first to jump ship for another V8 platform.

Cheers
Zek's

 

Jeez. They (the Government) are not making it easy then are they!

Cheers
Zek's

 

Yes. Granted, if I did the same trip in the Mustang. It would cost me a lot more money.

The only reason I have the French car is that it is a company car, and I have to drive around the country occasionally for my job. So yes, that does play a big part into the reason why I have a Mustang as a fun/weekend car. If I didn't have to drive around the country for my job. I think I would still use the Mustang to drive to my job. But yes, it would be more expensive because of this... but then I would also enjoy the drive more.

Cheers
Zek's

 

I do drive my Mustang as a daily driver, but it is getting close to the point where the monthly expense of driving it would be more than the monthly payment and gas of a new small fuel efficient car. It is more fun to drive a Mustang, but it is coming to the point where it is not affordable to do it. When the time comes time to trade up, I may need a 4 cylinder option to keep me as a Mustang owner. Otherwise I will have to look elsewhere for a fun and affordable car.

Mini?

Anyone here detune their car to squeeze more mpg out of it?

 

You can't ignor the high price of diesel engines that has to be figured into any fuel cost savings the same way the high cost of hybrid vehicles has to be factored into total cost of ownership.

Plus, a large increase in diesel consumption in the US will drive the price premium for diesel even higher, most likely more than offsetting the higher efficiency of diesels.

 

But if we all drove diesels and there was only one blend across 50 states, no gasoline, then what would it be? Or maybe one gasoline, no diesel, and no summer or winter blends for California and New York and Texas and drilling in ANWR and the coast of the PAcific and Atlantic and Gulf coast Florida? Someone doesn't want us to have cheap gas, and its not ExxonMobil. They don't want us to have guns, internal combustion engine, our own money, the right to choose your childs school, or basically any of the liberties this country was founded on. The agenda is to be big brother and tell us where to work, how much to make, what to drive, and how to live, and conservatives are not the ones doing it.

 

Not only on our faces but a smile on the faces of people in other cars to. It's almost like they look forward to one jumping on that V8 to here that sweet roar... V6/V8 and no four for the Mustang... JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION. But to each his/her own.

 

The Mustang is iconic and appears to be one of the few saving graces for Ford at the moment. I believe that the corporate heads at Ford would deliberate VERY carefully before introducing a variation on the the Mustang theme
given the conservatism of the core demographic. However we must be willing to accept the possibility of a high performance 4 cylinder variant if the marque aspires to wider acceptance in N. America and other markets.
Assuming that Ford really intends to do this I am certain it realizes the perils of introducing a cavalierly engineered product in a market segment that contains so many competitive rivals. Ford has "bet the farm" on
DI and turbocharging and plans to introduce this technology on a wide scale across its product range including, apparently, the Mustang. Ecoboost must do some heavy lifting for Ford in the next decade and the margin for error will be very slight particularly as this technology applies to the Mustang. I think there will always be a V-8 of some sort in the Mustang's future but we should reserve judgement regarding a 4 cylinder version until the final product is available for subjective and objective evaluation. It might be quite good.

 

4 cylinder turbo is fine with me.

Besides, that set up has been in the market for decades..

 

I prefer V8 Mustangs and have never considered buying a non-V8 Mustang. My next Mustang will be a V8! But, these are exciting times, and I welcome advancements in technology. I think a performance version of a GDI 4 & GDI V6 are both good ideas. I will have to keep an open mind. The non-V8 owners gotta love this stuff!!

 

Personally, more than a 4 banger in a price/economy leader Stang, Ford needs to have a sub-Stang 2+2 coupe along the lines of the old Ford Probe to complement the Stang.

Sure, you could put, say, the Mazda 2.3MZR motor, with its 260-280+hp capability and similar torque numbers, into the Stang and come up with a really good car. But put that motor in a Probe sized coupe and you would have a really great car. Or, perhaps, something like the Euro Focus RS, what with 250(?) hp turbo I5 and an extra brace of driven wheels. Such a critter would give Ford something credible for the whole Euro and tuner crowd, for whom the Stang is a bit too much a muscle-bound broad ax from another age, while freeing up the Stang for V6 and V8 duty, albeit at lower production volumes as more of a specialty car.

A TTV6 Ecoboost would seem a more comfortable fit into the Mustang lineup rather than a forced miserly move as would a 4 banger, regardless of how good it is on the objective merits. Perhaps a Stang engine/model lineup as thus:

Base: 3.5/3.7 V6 - 275-300hp
GT 350: TT3.5 V6 - 350hp
GT 400: 4V 5.0 V8 - 400hp
Boss 302: 4V 5.0 V8 - 425hp
GT500: TT 5.0 V8 - 500hp

The two GT's (350 and 400) would be similarly priced, though with rather different characters: the 350 going for a more balanced, Euro-style performance envelope while the GT 400 would be more like the current GT, a straight line racer. The Boss 302 would be a tuned version of the 5.0, a high revving screamer like the original. The GT500 would be a lighter, faster, more economical replacement for the current model, with perhaps handling to match (yes, IRS, and for the GT 350 and Boss too).

But with Ford's financial miasma and typically cribbed thinking, such a wonderful, logical and sensible scenario would never happen -- Ford seems more interested in giving us what they want to sell rather than what we want to buy, a conflation that has, among other failings, landed them in their current mess.

 

When you refer to 2+2 coupe along the lines of the old Probe, are you referring to another hatchback coupe ? No offense, but the last thing we all need, is for the Mustang to resemble a FWD Probe from the late 80's - early 90's !

 

Nice line-up Rhumb, just too bad Ford won't build it!

 

I meant a separate, smaller FWD/AWD along the general lines of the Probe, but certainly not that the Mustang should follow that route, quite to the contrary. That would allow the Mustang to more fully retain its character as a larger, RWD pony car with V6 and V8 engines. The second smaller Probe'esque sports coupe would be, well, smaller, lighter and more efficient with I4 and perhaps V6 engines, and be aimed more for the present import crowd.

Trying too hard to make a larger RWD Mustang into an econo performance coupe would, I think, be stretching its purpose and mission a bit much, much like that stillborn idea way back when of making the FWD Probe a Mustang replacement was too much of a stretch in the other direction. I believe their is room for two distinct sport coupes in the market and that their ought to be two distinct sport coupes to fill those niches. Trying to stretch one or the other, regardless of how appealing an idea to the suits in accounting, would only turn out badly.

 

As much as I love SE's, it would make it easier on all of us if Ford would just build a 300hp V6, 400hp V8 Mustang GT and continue to build a 500hp Shelby or a Boss.

Rumor has it, GM is doing the 300V6, 400V8, 500V8 on the Camaro. While the Dodge Challenger is 250hp V6, 370 & 375hp R/T and 425 SRT8.

 

As long as Ford builds a Boss 302 Mustang, I'll be very happy!!