I agree 100% with your statement! The way i see it is i have no problem being conservative when it comes to matters of morals and principles, however with technology i'am totally progressive in that i believe it can only get better. If Intel thought like some of these people on the forums we would still be stuck with 486 or pentium class processors. The next mustang is only going to get better and thats all that matters

 

Cute. You don't need to get the point.
A: Believe it or not, Chrysler is producing some of the most advanced "technologically" control systems out there. But that does not make them work better. Just reinventing a round wheel.

B: For instance: A power window motor needs 12 volts and a ground to work. That's it. Worked fine for over 60 years with a switch, fuse, and a relay. Now there are door modules using 5 volt data signals just to eventually feed 12 volts and a ground to the same damm 12volt motor. Why is this necessary?

C: Direct injection requires fuel pressure over 500-1000psi. (estimate) Requires a supply pump and an injector supply pump. To what gains? Few more mpg's? Few more hp? There's no point but to say you're advancing. Technologically.

D: The Boss is out handling just about everything under $100k. Does it need IRS or do you want to keep up with ze Germans?

You want cutting edge. Go buy a damm Prius.

 

It's not necessarily what people want. If ford, or any manufacturer wants to stay in business they have to deal with the ridiculous cafe standards which means even the mustang needs to be more fuel efficient. I'm sure they could make a model that went back to the glory days and many would be fine with that but right now government standards are pushing development further and while some of the "advancements" may not make sense, they keep the company in line with the government standards. Like it or not, di is inevitable if it improves mpg...

 

Nah I'm not saying DI is a bad thing but I just hope it's a very planned out system with impressive enough gains to justify the need. And if it's not worth the gains, don't waste their time.

 

I'm sorry, are you actually complaining about increased efficiency? because that's preposterous. A company has the ability to make the efficiency and operating costs of their vehicles smaller. How on earth is that ever a negative thing?

Hell, forget the MPGs, once you start tuning the car you have the potential for even more power. As someone who prefers American Muscle, how can anyone oppose more power? Efficiency doesn't just translate to gas mileage, efficiency is also the way to make more power.

As for IRS, the fact of the matter is while the current live axle setup is indeed magnificent, it still is a system where the effect the terrain has on one wheel can affect the other. An IRS can provide the same level of handling performance or better (depending on design) as well as decreased road instability.

Its true IRS is not a one step fix all for the Mustangs handling issues. but it has the potential to increase overall usability the car. I'm not sure what kind of roads you have near you, but a solid axle presents problems in certain situations. As much as I love my car, even with the new coilovers, its still unruly on the bad roads in my area. I've driven S197s here as well and while better than my own, they still don't solve the problem.

I do want cutting edge. I want a smaller, lighter, more efficient, more powerful and better handling Ford Mustang. It's not about "keeping up with the Germans", its about showing the whole world how great an American car really can be. And I'm really glad that Ford seems to be taking this stance.

 

I don't see the cost/benefit analysis of DI making it a worthwhile investment at this point. Maybe in a few more years. Better aero and reduced weight will likely be the methods to increase fuel economy with the platform, and DI will be a fall back plan of sorts.

If Ford uses the Boss 302 as their benchmark for the next GT, I think that's a great place to start.

 

Factor in production costs. Factor in reliability. Factor in the actual gains per cost. If DI gives us 300 more hp and 20 more mpg's then sign me up.

 

^This.....

 

For cryin' out loud...who took the bait.

 

No one technology does this, thats why they make incremental improvements to do just that.

We went from 70's v8s with 100hp and 12mpg, we added, fuel injection, dual overhead cams, variable cams, composite intakes, aluminum blocks and heads, 6 speed transmissons, and a host of other new tech that gives us a 420hp 5Liter that can get nearly 30mpg. So you did get your extra 300hp and 20mpg. just takes step after step.

 

I definitely agree with this...however, like at least half the people on these forums I am worried about the "better aero" I can't wait to see what it looks like and hope that Ford still makes it a "mustang".

 

Here you go..for the people who still want a LRA and no DI, the car for you..forgot the smiley..

 

That might be better looking than the new mustang

 

I think they should get the DI into the engine now. I mean look what Porsche has done with its 3.8L H6 with DI. The car gets 400hp (105+hp/litre) and the car gets almost 30+mpg (actually bettering it in some tests) with the addition of DI from the 3.8L H6 from 2008 which was rated at 355hp. I think since Ford is going to produce 10s of thousands of these cars from the get go they have to be as efficient as possible for CAFE reasons. Not to mention it would just get better as Ford learns how to implement it even more efficiently as time goes on.

Just my .02.

Dave

 

Will have to see how DI works out on the 5.0? Ford has stated that the gains from DI wont be as impressive compared to other engines going DI - Ford could just be playing the game or there is some truth to what they are saying or something in between?

IMO the big thing for Mustang guys is how accessible the technology will be. It will be great if say when DI hits, you can go down and plunk some cash down on a 450hp Mustang GT, not so great when you have to ante up an additional two grand for a piggyback port fuel injection system to keep the engine happy when you've strapped on a power adder.

 

Remember Ford also said the IRS in the S197 would be to expensive and heavy when we all learned that wasn't the case. Also, DI with a FI engine is even a better idea. Look what BMW, hell even Ford has done with FI and DI mixed together. Almost max torque available right off idle to redline, IMHO there is no way this can't be a winner. I would be surprised if DI didn't rear its head with the new Mustang, especially with CAFE requirements getting so strict. The good news is other manufacturers have already been using DI and Ford can learn from there miscues and save themselves a headache or two.

Dave

 

I cant see why anyone would be against the idea of using better technology to improve the mustang. If ford uses DI it will result in more power and greater fuel efficiency. If ford adds IRS it will result in better ride and potentially better handling especially on uneven/bumpy surfaces. If not they would not use them. It is really up to ford to run the cost/benefit analysis. They will know whether the gains in are worth the R+D expense and what impact any increase in price will have on sales and their own margins. It is pretty easy to play armchair engineer and crap all over these technologies as unnecessary but i think we should have some faith in the mustang team to do right by enthusiasts as well as build a car that will sell well in the general market.

It looks like they have made up their minds on the IRS based on the mules out there, over the last few years we have seen the commitment of the mustang team working to improve handling, if they didn't think IRS would improve the car i cant see them using it.

Obviously cost and complication is an issue with DI, however ford would seem to have significant experience with DI from the ecoboost program so it is not like the mustang would be piloting this technology. Sure cafe is probably pushing them in this direction but as a consumer I welcome getting better mileage for the same or likely more power. my guess would be in the 2015 update the NA 5.0 probably will not get DI. but it has to be down the road for that motor where another 1-2 mpg might not matter much to mustang buyers it will put some money back in the pockets of 5.0 F150 owners. If the twin turbo 3.5 with DI can handle a pickup truck lifecycle i think the 5.0 would do just fine.

 

I'm thinking more in terms of how accessible Mustang will be for modification, the suspension system will be pretty straight forward even with IRS (albeit more expensive for the really big suspension mods) but how accessible will the engine be for power upgrades and how easy will it be for the DIY person to work with the car?

 

I like carburetors, bias ply tires...and leaf springs. I like leaf springs.

 

Nothing sexier than a car you have to hand-crank. Yeah, baby, put your back into it while I choke it.

Wait, what?