What are some improvements you want to see in the NEXT GEN redesign?
#281
After reading the Bloomberg article about the Explorer redesign and how the company is thinking going forward, a new platform with a 150-200 lb. weight reduction isn't unreasonable.
#282
Mach 1 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: September 10, 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont think we are likely to see the ecoboost 4 cyl as a base engine with the 3.7 available as some have suggested. In the other vehicles it is available in it is marketed as the premium engine vs the v6, edge, explorer. odds are they would just bounce the 3.7 if they were gonna offer the ecboost 4. It likely costs more to produce than the 3.7.
#283
Actually there's nothing wrong with having an ecoboost 4 serving the entry level. Think about it,the upgraded v6 will be doing around 330hp(my guess) and to have something smaller with better FE and with decent pep will serve those customers well. This will only help expand the mustang customer base and increase the pesky little CAFE ratings for Ford....knock two birds with one stone
![Thumb](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/smilies/thumb.gif)
#285
"If it were the base engine, the 6 wouldn't be needed.
Especially if there is a weight reduction."
Your right but imo if Ford were to do that it would leave too much of a gap between ecoboost 4 and the v8. Ford has invested much into the 3.7 and makes plenty power while still being inexpensive to manufacture to get rid of it. Also the mustang is viewed as Ford's halo sports car and for some enthusiasts/consumers the idea of a 4 cylinder(turbo or not) being the mass market engine would not sit too well with them.
Again I believe the eco-4 will be there for consumers who want a mustang but without the high price tag of its higher trim lines, but also one that gets decent performance and good FE---FE being the main focus for them.
Especially if there is a weight reduction."
Your right but imo if Ford were to do that it would leave too much of a gap between ecoboost 4 and the v8. Ford has invested much into the 3.7 and makes plenty power while still being inexpensive to manufacture to get rid of it. Also the mustang is viewed as Ford's halo sports car and for some enthusiasts/consumers the idea of a 4 cylinder(turbo or not) being the mass market engine would not sit too well with them.
Again I believe the eco-4 will be there for consumers who want a mustang but without the high price tag of its higher trim lines, but also one that gets decent performance and good FE---FE being the main focus for them.
#286
I Have No Life
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
There's already a gap now that has started to grow larger and larger (and will probably continue to as well)
Long gone are the days of a 60hp gap between the V6/GT/Cobra
Keep in mind, if a Turbo 4 is equal to or faster than the V6..its a no brainer. (given fuel economy ..in the base model where it counts)
Long gone are the days of a 60hp gap between the V6/GT/Cobra
Keep in mind, if a Turbo 4 is equal to or faster than the V6..its a no brainer. (given fuel economy ..in the base model where it counts)
Last edited by Boomer; 2/17/11 at 02:51 PM.
#287
Shelby GT350 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
There's already a gap now that has started to grow larger and larger (and will probably continue to as well)
Long gone are the days of a 60hp gap between the V6/GT/Cobra
Keep in mind, if a Turbo 4 is equal to or faster than the V6..its a no brainer. (given fuel economy ..in the base model where it counts)
Long gone are the days of a 60hp gap between the V6/GT/Cobra
Keep in mind, if a Turbo 4 is equal to or faster than the V6..its a no brainer. (given fuel economy ..in the base model where it counts)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/28595.shtml
http://www.subaru.com/content/static...x/compare.html
Sad really.Though these are AWD so that attributes some. Not really any potent 4 cylinders out there to test against. Maybe the new Hyundai?
Last edited by Automagically; 2/17/11 at 03:19 PM.
#288
I Have No Life
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
It's Ok...
I'll wait
![Biggrinjester](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrinjester.gif)
#289
Mach 1 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: January 14, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What fuel economy? Seen the numbers for the Evo and WRX lately? Pathetic. The V6 rates the same as my 4 cylinder Civic Si and makes 105 more horsepower. I'd venture to say that 4 bangers are still just not what they need to be.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/28595.shtml
http://www.subaru.com/content/static...x/compare.html
Sad really.Though these are AWD so that attributes some. Not really any potent 4 cylinders out there to test against. Maybe the new Hyundai?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/28595.shtml
http://www.subaru.com/content/static...x/compare.html
Sad really.Though these are AWD so that attributes some. Not really any potent 4 cylinders out there to test against. Maybe the new Hyundai?
Last edited by Brewman; 2/18/11 at 05:27 AM.
#290
I Have No Life
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
People who have heavy feet are not going to get good gas mileage with a boosted engine... 4 or 6 or otherwise.
The payoff is on the highway when your are just cruising.
Not everyone is going to see the benefits, especially around town and with such varying driving habits.
The payoff is on the highway when your are just cruising.
Not everyone is going to see the benefits, especially around town and with such varying driving habits.
#291
Mach 1 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: September 10, 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its worth reiterating that in the explorer and edge the ecoboost 4 is the PREMIUM engine with better mileage than the 6. if it can move those beasts, moving the mustang especially one with a couple hundred less pounds should be relatively easy. plus the eco4 looks like it costs more to produce than the 6 as there is a price premium on the eco4 in the edge and explorer. i doubt a mustang buyer (probably less concerned about economy) if there was a eco4 and a DI6 people would pay more for the version with less hp even if performance was similar. which leads to the conclusion they will only offer 1 of the 2. it would be smarter for ford to only offer the better mileage version to further balance the cafe cost of the V8.
Last edited by xlover; 2/18/11 at 09:50 AM.
#294
I know this might be a little off topic but i wonder if what ford is going to show at the auto show in march will be the first hydraulic hybrid system. i know they were testing it back in 2006 i think with ups trucks if i remember correctly. After about a year i stopped hearing about it so i know it might not be mustang related right at this moment but im sure it could serve future engines well. It will probly first be used on trucks if they do use it given the extra room for the components. If i remember correctly in 06 they were saying 50 percent more fuel economy in the city and alot more tourque. ill have to find a more recent article on it if there is one.
#295
Mach 1 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: January 14, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its worth reiterating that in the explorer and edge the ecoboost 4 is the PREMIUM engine with better mileage than the 6. if it can move those beasts, moving the mustang especially one with a couple hundred less pounds should be relatively easy. plus the eco4 looks like it costs more to produce than the 6 as there is a price premium on the eco4 in the edge and explorer. i doubt a mustang buyer (probably less concerned about economy) if there was a eco4 and a DI6 people would pay more for the version with less hp even if performance was similar. which leads to the conclusion they will only offer 1 of the 2. it would be smarter for ford to only offer the better mileage version to further balance the cafe cost of the V8.
http://www.ford.com/crossovers/edge/...ations/engine/
Last edited by Brewman; 2/21/11 at 09:21 AM.
#296
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#297
Shelby GT350 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
If we use BMW math, then I could guess as high as 40 mpg. But the car would have zero power down low, an incredibly computer limited throttle and fuel delivery and would feel much more like a sling shot.
Just sayin', I never guesstimated what Ford said it would get. The car will be lighter, as will the engine so I'm sure it will be better than I can expect. It will at least be 31 mpg highway.
Now that I think about it, the RSTT gets some great fuel mileage with incredible performance, so it's possible.
#299
Shelby GT350 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Rev matching is pretty easy, and rewarding. To me, the rev matching seemed cool before I bought a manual of my own. Then I just think well, if you're going to have rev matching why not just remove the clutch all together and use a DCT. Just my 2 cents. But I think it is pretty neat and a good way to get perfect revs on every shift.
#300
Legacy TMS Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
DCT = snore, even with a rev matching manual you still get all the regular interaction.
Anyways, one improvement I would like to see for the next gen - 2012 Boss Mustang handling & performance numbers should be the starting point for the next GT.
Also having seen some vids for the Boss, its safe to say it will have launch control.
Anyways, one improvement I would like to see for the next gen - 2012 Boss Mustang handling & performance numbers should be the starting point for the next GT.
Also having seen some vids for the Boss, its safe to say it will have launch control.