Twin Turbo

Well, 351 does have a nice ring to it

future9er24

351 sounds nice but it doesnt roll off the tongue as nicely as "351turbo"

jsaylor

351 Super Cobra Jet would flow off the tongue best of all.

future9er24

you wouldnt see me complaining, thats for sure

tacbear

I can almost guarantee it won't be called SVO. Some of you guys were not around back in the day when SVT(Special Vehicle Team) was SVO(Special Vehicle Operations).

Dave07997S

Also, the SVO wasn't the first turbo Mustang. Remember back in 1979..the 2.3 Turbo motor was stronger than the 302 back then.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the entry level Mustang gets the 2.0L Ecoboost at 245hp, especially if Ford has to use this to jack up its CAFE rating.


Dave

Itravelalot

People need to be excited about the car to buy it. Granted the change in style and weight will be nice, but going from 300+ horses to 245hp will be a hard pill to swallow.

Dave07997S

I agree with you, however, the bottom line is Ford sells a lot of Mustangs. Fuel is at or will be at $4-5 per gallon very soon and I think you are going to see a paradigm shift in what the public wants. We saw this in 08 when people were buying Hybrids in the droves, the economy took a dump and fuel prices plummeted back down and that shift didn't complete the cycle. I think the next go around will be that shift. Keep in mind that 245hp in a car that is a couple of hundred pounds lighter and with DI in which 95% of the torque is available right off of idle (ala 335i) and it should still make for an exciting package to drive. BMW is now releasing a 2.0L DI TT motor making similar h p and it has some great reviews. It is being released in the X1 as well as the 1 series for next year.

I just feel this is the wave of the future..it may have more than 245hp in Mustang trim but I do believe this engine will find its way in the Mustang.

Dave

jsaylor

I'm unsure of where the certainty in the future rise of oil prices is coming from. Yes, demand is and will continue to increase, but the production possibility curve is moving at least as quickly and likely moreso. The sheer number of companies and states investing huge money into oil production, refinement, and exploration is mind-boggling.

Except for the possibility of blatant market manipulation, long term, the price of oil should drop.

Dave07997S

Wow big guy, I don't know where you got your info from but I sure hope you are right. I do know that there is technologies that will raise US production up by 50% in the next 5 years if the US Govt. allows us to do it. The problem is, unless oil prices rise is it going to be affordable for them to do this type of exploration and R&D. From what I read oil prices have to be at $100+ per barrel for it to be profitable.

Aside from this though, in reality I do believe the writing is on the wall sooner or later we will see smaller displacement motors along with TT and DI to get the job done.

I for one love V8s, thats one of the reasons I got rid of the 997 to get the M3.

Dave

Itravelalot

Wow, this is almost as good as the one about us being able to mop the floor with China if we ever decided to take out the middle east (not that we would because we are too nice).

Reserve levels and SUSTAINABLE production capacity right now are only known for sure by the people who are getting the oil. Saudi Arabia does not generally let open international teams to come in and publicly audit their numbers and verify accuracy of their statements of reserve levels. Basically, they are just a guess at best for those of us that are not Saudis.

As for increasing tech, don't hold your breath. Major oil finds have only gone down in the past 20 years despite some of the best tech we have ever had. We can get more out of less, but there is a limit to that. Deeper wells, sideways drilling, and oil sands all are more expensive than older techniques are. Oil sands are either lose energy once everything is accounted for, or close. It is very hard to get that oil, and it really only is profitable because of better tech and higher oil prices.

You are right that we have better tech though. We have so much good tech that we know the earth's geology in such great detail that finding oil is much more easy than ever before. The problem is that we know it so well that quite a lot of places are either taken now, or off the list of sites that would have it. We essentially know earth's geology so well that finding new easy and cheap sites to extract just will likely not happen much anymore. Deep water sites, and sites that were undrillable before might happen, but again, this costs money even with better tech.

Sustainable oil production is just a guess and one that sometimes people get wrong. Since countries have limits of oil extraction based on their estimated reserves, that does not give them much incentive to tell the truth. Hiccups can happen. Look at Mexico's Cantrell oil field. It was a supergiant field producing 2.1 million barrels a day. It fell off really fast. Much faster than expected. Even with nitrogen injection and all available technology, they are only pulling out less than 500,000 barrels a day now. That is far below what people had thought would be the case. So what happens in other countries is really a guess that can be lost.

Now, I am not saying that we need to fear peak oil anytime soon. Tech will certainly be able to get us enough oil to keep things going, but to say there is a rosy outlook is just misinformed. Our easy oil is being depleted, and better extraction takes more money to do. As we can see from the recent BP oil platform mess, there are still risks involved with the hard to reach oil.

Oil will not go down much. Demand will go up, but must be tempered by supply. It is good that we are getting into alternative fuel vehicles, because they will not just help with rising gas prices, they will also eventually help us not care as much about the political instabilities inherently associated with oil.

I still do plan on getting my v8 mustang, but realistically, I can see the time where it might be nice to also have something either electric/gas or just pain more fuel efficient.

jsaylor

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...51C3BH20090213

Read the above. This is two years old and effectively finds an oil exec admitting that the drive to create more capacity has led to disinterest in creating any more capacity because, if supply and demand were allowed to balance out under those conditions, the price of oil would be too cheap. He is basically on record telling you that getting oil is cheap and easy right now, which really shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody.

To put it really plainly the guy is effectively hinting at something dangerously close to collusion, even if he is trying to cover that up by suggesting the profits aren't sufficient to cover expansion. The supply of oil and the ability to process it is not and virtually never has been the problem. If the price of oil goes up and stays there it will be because that end was planned by some oil producers and refiners, a reality which would be highly illegal in virtually every Western court of law and more than a few others.

The question here is will anybody stop it? Last time the price of oil went stratospheric the threat of conflict increased drastically as did the notion that more than a few people could end up on long term Federal vacation. It took far longer to get to that conclusion than I expected, and that is saying something because I was looking for some foot dragging, but that it would happen was inevitable. Some folks may be pushing for that again, but not everybody is by any stretch of the imagination including many in the oil industry. In other words, don't assume that everybody in on board although, as the guy in the above article demonstrates, enough are to potentially cause problem if it is allowed.

There is no legal, economic reason for the price of oil to increase.

And I'm hearing Discovery again, so clearly in fact that it is like it's on inside my house.

Saud Arabia has zero interest in the price of oil escalating much beyond where it is right now and has gone to surprisingly great measure in an attempt to make certain that doesn't happen because they don't believe that is in their best interest and they are 100% right. They are not the ones driving for higher oil prices.

Itravelalot

I really am not interested in turning this thread into one that belongs in the politics and religion section. Did you really read the article that YOU linked to?

Let me explain it to you so that you do not have to spread as much ignorant statements that have no basis in fact. Tell me, how do extraction techniques like oil sand production not cost much more than pumping it out of an easy well? When I say that the process is net energy negative, I mean that it takes more total energy to bring the oil out of the sands, process it, and get it ready, than you get from the oil produced. I am not sure if you do lose energy, but it is close either way. It is unquestionably a high cost endeavor, and cannot be profitable with low oil prices.

When the article says that "The oil price collapse has weakened the industry's capacity to increase output and future production may top out at a lower level than earlier expected." This basically means that due to the lower than expected cost of oil, investments have shrunk. As investments shrink, the FUTURE capacity decreases from what it would have been had there been more investment in the first place. This was actually an interesting article to read. Obviously, the high tech methods of extracting oil cost more not only while they are being used, but to develop. In other words, if new tech is not invested in, in the first place, production capacities will NEVER be able to rise to what was expected because by the time the prices do rise to allow more tech development and usage, the easy oil will be even more depleted, and overall production will still be lower than what we had expected before the current price drops.

I would submit to you all that I do not think that prices will ever rise beyond a certain uncomfortable point as long as there is anywhere near enough oil to go around. I feel this is because even investors will not want oil to go past the point where the price ruins the economy too much. Nevertheless, having oil prices tempered by anything will only serve to weaken investment from what it would be if prices were higher.

As for what this means for cars? Well cars are one of the easiest things to make run on alternative fuels. Since ships, airplanes, trucks, and trains are harder to convert, they should be the ones using oil when there is a problem with not having as much as we would like. Turbos would be useful, but given the challenge before us, I for one would like to see some sort of a hybrid/alternative fuel Mustang (that is darn fast) by 2020. Turbo in this situation does make sense.

And again, if you insist that ethanol is a realistic substitute, do the math about the yield per acre, how much food/acres is required for a barrel, how much water, how much energy, and how much total cost including farmer subsidies is required for ethanol production. Simply put, if we had a very serious problem with oil, using ethanol to fuel all of our cars is unrealistic at best. We do not have the land, water, and resources to profitably grow fuel for our cars and food for ourselves if that is all we used.