Mustang for Europe with turbo-diesel
4/6/10, 08:04 AM
#1
Team Mustang Source
Thread Starter
Mustang for Europe with turbo-diesel
4/6/10, 10:52 AM
#2
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 26, 2004
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
two other things that i noticed when listening to them talking (from this link: http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/journal/?p=9064)
first was that one of the upcoming areas of concentration is weight and that Pericak seemd pretty confident in being able to shave some 300 lbs from the mustang.
the second was that Pericak was satisfied with the SRA and where they were going with it, to the point that it didnt seem as though adding an IRS was much (if any) of a priority.
first was that one of the upcoming areas of concentration is weight and that Pericak seemd pretty confident in being able to shave some 300 lbs from the mustang.
the second was that Pericak was satisfied with the SRA and where they were going with it, to the point that it didnt seem as though adding an IRS was much (if any) of a priority.
4/6/10, 11:28 AM
#3
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going with Diesel would be pretty bold. With a gas V8 it can (at least initially) thrive as a bit of an American novelty in Europe, with a European V6TD under the hood it will have to give up some of that image. That said I think the current car would have a really good chance of succeeding on its merits and the next-gen likely even more so.
IRS is just something we're going to have to wait and see on. When Mustang moves to a global platform (or spawns one) IRS becomes very likely. Before then you can make a business/consumer case either way.
IRS is just something we're going to have to wait and see on. When Mustang moves to a global platform (or spawns one) IRS becomes very likely. Before then you can make a business/consumer case either way.
4/6/10, 02:13 PM
#5
GTR Member
This isn't the first time I've heard this but..................NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 
The appeal of the Mustang in Europe is the fact it is so different to the boring, clinical offerings from Europe and Asia. The majority of Mustangs in the UK are V8s. On paper, that makes no sense in a country where fuel now costs £1.20/litre. Yes, a LITRE. Think $9/gallon. But you forget all that the minute the engine is fired up. Many of us run our cars as toys, using them on sunny weekends (we do get a few
). Would I use it every day with a diesel under the hood? NOT A CHANCE 
Considering the S197 is not officially sold by Ford in the UK, its been a relative success. OK, we're only talking 1000s rather than tens of 1000s, but most of those bought it because of it's engine, not despite it.
Personally, I don't think the figures will stack up enough for them to sell the car officially. Does that bother me? No, because we already have some excellent specialists that import them and look after them for us.
A diesel Mustang is just, well, wrong.
I'd imagine IF they sell it, it'll also be RHD. That's just not right, either
The appeal of the Mustang in Europe is the fact it is so different to the boring, clinical offerings from Europe and Asia. The majority of Mustangs in the UK are V8s. On paper, that makes no sense in a country where fuel now costs £1.20/litre. Yes, a LITRE. Think $9/gallon. But you forget all that the minute the engine is fired up. Many of us run our cars as toys, using them on sunny weekends (we do get a few
). Would I use it every day with a diesel under the hood? NOT A CHANCE Considering the S197 is not officially sold by Ford in the UK, its been a relative success. OK, we're only talking 1000s rather than tens of 1000s, but most of those bought it because of it's engine, not despite it.
Personally, I don't think the figures will stack up enough for them to sell the car officially. Does that bother me? No, because we already have some excellent specialists that import them and look after them for us.
A diesel Mustang is just, well, wrong.
I'd imagine IF they sell it, it'll also be RHD. That's just not right, either
4/6/10, 05:56 PM
#6
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dunno, 270hp, 443 lb/ft and 34 mpg combined all sounds very impressive on their merits alone. I certainly wouldn't want to have a diesel option supplant any of the gas motors, but I do think it would make a very forwards looking and market broadening option and would not dilute the Stang's appeal, some of which hinges upon torquey bent engines.
Shoot fire, we endured the Pleistocene era 4.0 Cologne V6 that was originally made of flint parts and Mastodon bones. If that thing didn't cripple the Mustang's appeal like a Ralph Nader endorsement, then I think the Stang's image is stout enough to handle a diesel in the engine room.
Shoot fire, we endured the Pleistocene era 4.0 Cologne V6 that was originally made of flint parts and Mastodon bones. If that thing didn't cripple the Mustang's appeal like a Ralph Nader endorsement, then I think the Stang's image is stout enough to handle a diesel in the engine room.
Last edited by rhumb; 4/6/10 at 05:57 PM.
6/11/10, 01:55 PM
#9
The Analog Admin!
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Visalia Ca.
Posts: 10,957
Received 3,187 Likes
on
2,334 Posts
There's Always Plug in electric! ZAP!KC
6/14/10, 08:51 PM
#10
Legacy TMS Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGHEhKo5Ils
Last edited by bob; 6/14/10 at 08:52 PM.
6/15/10, 06:59 AM
#11
I think the 5.0 gas has more than enough torque... 
12/12/10, 09:10 AM
#12
Bullitt Member
Join Date: December 4, 2010
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it seems that cost for an oil burner would be an issue. However you get torque and weight savings in one package. Isn't a diesel being run in F1 and blowing the doors off everybody?
12/12/10, 10:26 AM
#13
Member
Join Date: August 17, 2010
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you'd save weight... turbodiesels are generally heavier than gas engines.
There are no diesels in F1. I suspect you're thinking of LeMans, where Audi and Peugeot have recently had great success with diesel powered cars. Though diesel engines in LeMans are allowed a maximum displacement of 5.5L compared to 4.0L for petrol. That, coupled with the existence of a minimum weight requirement, gives diesels a bit of an advantage.
There are no diesels in F1. I suspect you're thinking of LeMans, where Audi and Peugeot have recently had great success with diesel powered cars. Though diesel engines in LeMans are allowed a maximum displacement of 5.5L compared to 4.0L for petrol. That, coupled with the existence of a minimum weight requirement, gives diesels a bit of an advantage.
Last edited by cereal; 12/12/10 at 10:27 AM.
12/12/10, 08:31 PM
#14
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you'd save weight... turbodiesels are generally heavier than gas engines.
There are no diesels in F1. I suspect you're thinking of LeMans, where Audi and Peugeot have recently had great success with diesel powered cars. Though diesel engines in LeMans are allowed a maximum displacement of 5.5L compared to 4.0L for petrol. That, coupled with the existence of a minimum weight requirement, gives diesels a bit of an advantage.
There are no diesels in F1. I suspect you're thinking of LeMans, where Audi and Peugeot have recently had great success with diesel powered cars. Though diesel engines in LeMans are allowed a maximum displacement of 5.5L compared to 4.0L for petrol. That, coupled with the existence of a minimum weight requirement, gives diesels a bit of an advantage.
I'm not sure what you mean by minimum weight requirement -- and how it could be advantageous for the diesel-powered cars -- because the petrol cars are lighter than their diesel counterparts (I'm thinking 30-50 kilograms, off the top of my head). The diesels are also handicapped with smaller fuel tanks, 81 liters for the diesel cars and 90 liters for the petrol-powered cars (I understand that diesel contains more energy per gallon, but I digress). You're right, too, in that the diesels were allowed a maximum displacement of 5.5L; 4.0L for a turbocharged petrol engine and 6.0L (I think -- again, off the top of my head) for naturally-aspirated petrol engines. Of course, this all changes for 2011.
Last edited by MARZ; 12/12/10 at 08:34 PM.
12/13/10, 03:01 PM
#15
Member
Join Date: August 17, 2010
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it is, both diesel and petrol cars are at the minimum 900kg, so the extra weight of the diesel engine isn't a handicap. Although the petrol cars do have more freedom with ballast/extra weight in the chassis.
12/15/10, 08:51 PM
#16
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I meant that the minimum weight (somewhat) negates the weight disadvantage of having a diesel engine. Without the minimum, the petrol cars could be significantly lighter than the diesels, and gain a serious advantage.
As it is, both diesel and petrol cars are at the minimum 900kg, so the extra weight of the diesel engine isn't a handicap. Although the petrol cars do have more freedom with ballast/extra weight in the chassis.
As it is, both diesel and petrol cars are at the minimum 900kg, so the extra weight of the diesel engine isn't a handicap. Although the petrol cars do have more freedom with ballast/extra weight in the chassis.
12/17/10, 12:54 PM
#18
Shelby GT350 Member
I'd be even sweeter if they'd man up and get a manual gear box for it. Think outside the box BMW and contract a manual transmission for the car. Can't even get a DSG. Oh well, LOADS of torque. I don't think it would do well in the US, but I could be surprised. I think it's a viable power plant though. Diesels have come a looooong way.
12/17/10, 02:23 PM
#19
I dunno, 270hp, 443 lb/ft and 34 mpg combined all sounds very impressive on their merits alone. I certainly wouldn't want to have a diesel option supplant any of the gas motors, but I do think it would make a very forwards looking and market broadening option and would not dilute the Stang's appeal, some of which hinges upon torquey bent engines.
Shoot fire, we endured the Pleistocene era 4.0 Cologne V6 that was originally made of flint parts and Mastodon bones. If that thing didn't cripple the Mustang's appeal like a Ralph Nader endorsement, then I think the Stang's image is stout enough to handle a diesel in the engine room.
Shoot fire, we endured the Pleistocene era 4.0 Cologne V6 that was originally made of flint parts and Mastodon bones. If that thing didn't cripple the Mustang's appeal like a Ralph Nader endorsement, then I think the Stang's image is stout enough to handle a diesel in the engine room.
12/17/10, 04:01 PM
#20
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
