I should hope 20 years of technology makes a difference for Ford vehicles as far as engine management and horsepower output vs. fuel use is concerned. That's why I want the Ecoboost/Twinforce engines to do well. If Ford can't learn from past mistakes, well...

 

I think I really agree with Page.

From what I've been reading (you all are probably already very aware of specifics), I think the longer term is going in the direction of diesel. It's an infrastructure that's already in place. It's bio-friendly and getting more so all the time. There's no detonation and octane issues to worry about so you can make more power more easily, and without sacrificing fuel economy nearly as much as gas. It can be made to produce higher top end than has been done in the past, and responds wonderfully to turbocharging. In many ways a best of most (not all) worlds scenario. And many companies are proving it already - diesel truck drag racing is getting much bigger all of a sudden, the Audi R10 has mopped the floor with prototype racing and at least Peugeot has followed with their own programs.

I'm just waiting to see what kind of HP vs Torque vs Fuel Economy they can put out of a Bio-Diesel engine. Seems like from the outside a winning solution for automakers, even if I think it's a little weird thinking about driving a diesel sports car like a Mustang....

 

Which is one reason the Explorer will no longer be available in a V8. All that's left with V8's now is the Mustang, Expedition, F-Series Trucks, and E-Series Vans. I could see them dropping the Expedition and just going with the Explorer and Flex from now on.

 

Hey guys is it just me or does a high powered motor burn a lot of gas no matter how big or small it is. My friend's Subaru STI has an impressive 300HP from a little turbo 4, but it gets the same gas mileage as a Mustang GT. Even in the 4th gen wars though the F-bodies 5.7 was bigger than Ford's 4.6 they had about the same gas mileage

My feeling is a 500HP car is gonna burn more than a 300HP car no matter what is under the hood!

 

Only if you keep your foot in it!! My 381rwhp Mustang GT actually gets better mileage than it did when it was a 245rwhp Mustang GT!

 

4.6 or 5.0 liter OHV engine with either a supercharger or twin turbos making anywhere from 450 - 800hp and I'll be happy with that.

If the economy keeps tanking and the price of gas keeps going up -
The big three will continue to push for more fuel efficient cars.
So yes we are lucky that we purchased our mustangs when we did.
Which means we will be able to smoke those cars !

 

Naw, consumers will push for more fuel effcient cars, and thats the way its supposed to work. It's Detriot's job to make fuel efficient technology reliable, accessible, and affordable based on the demands of consumers.

 

Not true, CAFE is calculated separately between cars and trucks.

Currently the CAFE standard is 27.5 MPG for cars and light trucks 20.7 MPG ( increases to 22.5 MPG this year ).

So the Mustang hurts Ford's car CAFE #s.

 

maybe we shouldnt give up anything. demand lower prices for oil. then that makes everyone happy. except the oil companies but no one cares what they think anyways.

 

I've read a few articles (sorry no links right now - I'd have to go back and look) that pretty much state that this is really a non-issue. Or at least not as big of an issue as it seems on first impression.

One of the reasons stated was that the CAFE ratings use a MPG calculation that is much more optimistic that the one used by the EPA (printed on door stickers). The conclusion of the article being that automakers would need to increase (on average) the mileage rating of cars about 5 MPG instead of 10 MPG as it seems on first impression.

 

Good luck with that, Oil companies still have to operate with a reasonable margin which I wont complain about until people start *****ing about every other company that operates with a margin of 10% or more. One thing does get my water boiling and that was the tax incentives carried over into the new energy bill for big oil.

 

This is correct. If in real world driving vehicles actually delivered their CAFE #s we'd have plenty of oil to go around.

Also, the huge increase in oil prices over the last few years as much to do with the tanking dollar as real price increases. Today it takes $1.47 to buy one Euro. 5 years ago you could buy a Euro with 90 cents. That means in 5 years a gallon of gas has gone from $1.90 to $3.10 solely on the loss in value of the dollar. Aren't you glad that Ford hasn't increased Mustang prices by that much?

 

V10 you are correct, the Mustang currently factors only into the CAFE ratings for cars. With the revised standard recently passed by our esteemed lawmakers in Washington, are they incorporating cars, trucks and SUVs to create a combined rating or keeping them separate? I thought I read somewhere that they were being combined.

Either way, I think Ford is (or will) give serious consideration to placing the EcoBoost I4 in the base Mustang.

 

We can have a much more efficient Mustang right now. Ford can implement technolgy similar to BMW's Valvetronic that eleminates the traditional throttle body. Ford can also implement an advanced variable valve timing sytem with Direct Injection. Finally, a 6 speed auto and manual would help bring the rpms down on the highway. With all of the above, a 4.6 3V should get near 30 mph highway in our Mustangs. Another thing that would help would be to improve the aero (CD) when the car is redesigned. The current design isn't very sleak, which cuts down on mileage.

 

I believe that's what was proposed when the new CAFE standard was being debated, ie. combined car & truck 35 MPG fleet. However, I haven't seen exactly what was finally passed into law.

The whole CAFE thing is really screwed up. I believe that E85 vehicles would be rated on some factor of the 15% gasoline consumption vs 85% ethanol consumption. So an E85 vehicle that gets 15 MPG would actually get credited for something like 40 MPG in the CAFE ratings.

That's why the auto companies are going to be pushing E85 vehicles down our throats.

 

And exactly how much more will you pay for the expensive Valvetronic system.

You're dreaming about 30 MPG from the 4.6. With all it's fancy technology, the EPA ratings for the 300 HP BMW 335 is 16 / 25 MPG for the manual and 17 /25 MPG for the auto, not much better than a 300 HP 4.6L Mustang. The 7 series with its fancy valvetronic 4.8L V8 is rated 15 / 23 MPG.

 

Don't forget the Bimmer requires premium fuel

 

Technology is expensive in small production runs. ABS was at one time expensive.

As for fuel economy, our current Mustang is rated at 15 City/23 Hwy with a manual. My Mustang when stock would beat the EPA rating on the highway. Read up on all of those technologies, they do work to increase fuel economy. I don't think that 30 mpg from a modern 4.6 on the highway is out of question, if geared properly and with a sleak design. Heck, the LS3 with 6.2 liters is EPA rated at 26 mpg on the highway. My buddy has seem almost 30 mpg cruising at 65 mph on the highway!

 

And if you have figured out how to implement those technologies without infringing on other companies patents, I'm sure Ford would love to hire you.

Just because a technology exists doesn't mean you can use it.

 

Geez, everyone is sensitive here. First, I think Ford makes a 6 speed manual as well as automatic. Secondly, doesn't the new EcoBoost have direct injection? I can go on, but Ford currently has most of the technology I've mentioned. They just choose not to use it.

I also believe that Ford is working with Valeo to develop a camless engine, which will boost fuel economy greatly.

Maybe they should hire me after all?