History of the 4-Cylinder Mustang
3/14/15, 11:46 AM
#1
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
History of the 4-Cylinder Mustang
Since many others enjoyed my Top 10 Reason Why I Love My EB video, I thought I'd share this one, too.
This one is a quick history of the birth of the Mustang, discussing the concepts behind it, and then gets right into what it means to be a Mustang, explaining why the I4 is a valid engine to put in a Mustang.
I'm doing a full history of the Mustang video soon. As a history professor and Mustang fan, these are fun to do!
This one is a quick history of the birth of the Mustang, discussing the concepts behind it, and then gets right into what it means to be a Mustang, explaining why the I4 is a valid engine to put in a Mustang.
I'm doing a full history of the Mustang video soon. As a history professor and Mustang fan, these are fun to do!
Last edited by CubedStang; 3/14/15 at 12:53 PM.
3/14/15, 01:24 PM
#2
Legacy TMS Member
A 1 cylinder could be made as 'valid', y'know. So could electric motors as a plug in or a gas-electric.. or a hybrid system...
Spin doesn't make it awesome.
Performing well and masses liking it make it awesome.
EB will do fine, but my belief is that gas-electric (similar to diesel-electric of trains) is where we're headed, and that should actually *rock* due to the power of the electric motors.
Spin doesn't make it awesome.
Performing well and masses liking it make it awesome.
EB will do fine, but my belief is that gas-electric (similar to diesel-electric of trains) is where we're headed, and that should actually *rock* due to the power of the electric motors.
3/14/15, 04:47 PM
#3
Cobra Member
"EB will do fine, but my belief is that gas-electric (similar to diesel-electric of trains) is where we're headed, and that should actually *rock* due to the power of the electric motors."
I can see it now, a Tesla Mustang GT with all wheel drive and 650hp getting 50 mpg
I am in!
I can see it now, a Tesla Mustang GT with all wheel drive and 650hp getting 50 mpg
I am in!
Last edited by SD CALSPCL; 3/14/15 at 04:53 PM.
3/14/15, 07:58 PM
#5
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's exactly the point the of the video. The point is to respect each other and realize that engine size won't dictate the spirit of the Mustang; it goes far beyond engine size, and as an owner of over almost 20 of them (from i-4s, to Turbo i-4s, to V6s, to V8s, to Supercharged V8s) I can definitely attest to that. I've loved them all in different ways, and they've all felt like a "Mustang" to me.
Last edited by CubedStang; 3/14/15 at 08:00 PM.
3/14/15, 10:25 PM
#6
Legacy TMS Member
I had an SVO. I had a Mustang II hatch with that awful V6. I've had a '66 I6 Sprint coupe, restomod.
Loved them all in some way.
But Awesome is a V8 manual, and to me, that's how she should be. Just like the others were what they should be. Well, except Muskrat (the '66), cause I always wanted a 302/5.0 in her, but that's another story.
There will always be those who don't or won't accept any less than the V8 sound in a car.
I say, get Ford to change the firing order/timing to something on the order of a VFR750/VFR800, and you WILL get people to love that.
Because that firing order and timing, with the right exhaust, should sound *amazing*:
Seriously. Could you imagine if the Ecoboost sounded even *close* to those? Ohhh my yes.
Although I will say... I have NO idea if the turbo system would get in the way of that, but still... firing order and timing. It's a thing folks. I believe.
Loved them all in some way.
But Awesome is a V8 manual, and to me, that's how she should be. Just like the others were what they should be. Well, except Muskrat (the '66), cause I always wanted a 302/5.0 in her, but that's another story.
There will always be those who don't or won't accept any less than the V8 sound in a car.
I say, get Ford to change the firing order/timing to something on the order of a VFR750/VFR800, and you WILL get people to love that.
Because that firing order and timing, with the right exhaust, should sound *amazing*:
Seriously. Could you imagine if the Ecoboost sounded even *close* to those? Ohhh my yes.
Although I will say... I have NO idea if the turbo system would get in the way of that, but still... firing order and timing. It's a thing folks. I believe.
Last edited by houtex; 3/14/15 at 10:27 PM.
3/15/15, 07:15 AM
#7
Legacy TMS Member
I respect the article. But it says allot of negative about the 4 cylinders past. Gas prices are what forced this into production. Same thing again. I'm not for owning one. Every time I've owned a 4 cylinder it bit me in the *** when it came to horse power. I was on my way home from work one night and I had some mother forkin kids going 10 miles per hour on a one lane highway. Every time I tried to pass they would just speed up to keep me from going around and then slow back down just to **** with me. That day I said never again. There were disadvantages to not being able to get onto the freeway safely. I know times change and some things get better. I will sit on the sidelines and let this concept prove its self before I jump back into that pool.
Last edited by GrnT; 3/15/15 at 07:17 AM.
3/15/15, 11:03 AM
#8
Legacy TMS Member
The SVO and EB would let that blocking thing not happen. Plenty of power in both. Even the 4 bangers that aren't boosted get decent power these days.
So if your argument is the argument of the 70s, you need to revisit perhaps. And also, take a left or right all of a sudden to lose them, go a different route (if possible... certain roads in the country that'd be difficult, I know.)
However, I love my V8 and I totally get ya man. Blow them doors off!
So if your argument is the argument of the 70s, you need to revisit perhaps. And also, take a left or right all of a sudden to lose them, go a different route (if possible... certain roads in the country that'd be difficult, I know.)
However, I love my V8 and I totally get ya man. Blow them doors off!
Last edited by houtex; 3/15/15 at 11:04 AM.
3/18/15, 07:53 PM
#9
Banned
Join Date: August 2, 2013
Location: Little north of Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 3,090
Received 254 Likes
on
230 Posts
So according to this video ... the 1996 Celica or the 2013 Scion FRS are Pony Cars? Or Pony Cars of non-American Origins to be exact?
My Mustang experience involves deep sounding V8 growl. It's not even about the size of the engine, but the sound it makes! Which is becoming more and more a thing of the past. Even M3s no longer come with V8s. I did have some appreciation for the Turo-Celicas of the 90s. Same way I appreciate the EB4. Cool, but not for me.
Nice video thoug, and not a bad historical representation of the brand. Though if you need to make a video to "justify" the existence of a car, you've sort of self-defeated the point you were trying to make in the first place.
My Mustang experience involves deep sounding V8 growl. It's not even about the size of the engine, but the sound it makes! Which is becoming more and more a thing of the past. Even M3s no longer come with V8s. I did have some appreciation for the Turo-Celicas of the 90s. Same way I appreciate the EB4. Cool, but not for me.
Nice video thoug, and not a bad historical representation of the brand. Though if you need to make a video to "justify" the existence of a car, you've sort of self-defeated the point you were trying to make in the first place.
3/19/15, 03:40 PM
#11
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So according to this video ... the 1996 Celica or the 2013 Scion FRS are Pony Cars? Or Pony Cars of non-American Origins to be exact?
My Mustang experience involves deep sounding V8 growl. It's not even about the size of the engine, but the sound it makes! Which is becoming more and more a thing of the past. Even M3s no longer come with V8s. I did have some appreciation for the Turo-Celicas of the 90s. Same way I appreciate the EB4. Cool, but not for me.
Nice video thoug, and not a bad historical representation of the brand. Though if you need to make a video to "justify" the existence of a car, you've sort of self-defeated the point you were trying to make in the first place.
My Mustang experience involves deep sounding V8 growl. It's not even about the size of the engine, but the sound it makes! Which is becoming more and more a thing of the past. Even M3s no longer come with V8s. I did have some appreciation for the Turo-Celicas of the 90s. Same way I appreciate the EB4. Cool, but not for me.
Nice video thoug, and not a bad historical representation of the brand. Though if you need to make a video to "justify" the existence of a car, you've sort of self-defeated the point you were trying to make in the first place.
That said, I'm still a fan of the V8s... like I said, I have no dog in the fight, and don't need to justify my purchase of the 4-cylinder; I'll be back in the V8 in a few years after already owning almost 10 V8 Stangs. I just got sick of this "it isn't a Mustang" talk and decided to present the 4-cylinder history of the car, explain why it matters, and why someone's preferred variant of the Mustang shouldn't override someone else's enjoyment of the car. The Mustang means a lot of things to a lot of people.
Last edited by CubedStang; 3/19/15 at 03:42 PM.
3/19/15, 07:43 PM
#12
Bullitt Member
Again, great video!!! I have to agree with you in regards to the mustang/pony car experience. I've owned 6 previous mustangs with v8 power plants. I recently purchased mine for many different reasons and ended up with a V6 mustang. It was the best choice for me and I do enjoy it as well as my v8 counter parts. I haven't looked back, like should I have purchased the v8 has not been a factor in my enjoyment of this pony car. Now if Ford was going to discontinue the v8 mustang, I would have a completely different reaction because I want to have the option in the future. Ultimately, the café standards have had a direct impact on the future power plants of the mustang but they better not ever give up on the V8. I have to mention that I did test drive a 1986 svo mustang in black and it was fast and ahead of it's time. The cost difference was to high and I ended up with a 1985 mustang GT with t-tops. I really enjoyed that car but I had a lot of respect for the SVO after I test drove it.
3/19/15, 08:10 PM
#13
Mach 1 Member
Great vid! However, do not get so butt hurt driving a V6 or a 4 banger. If it works for you and you like it, that is all that matters. Stay thirsty my friends!
Last edited by SpeedCostsMoney; 3/20/15 at 05:26 AM.
3/20/15, 02:47 PM
#14
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3/20/15, 05:24 PM
#15
V6 Member
Join Date: March 18, 2015
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no justification needed for the Ecoboost. None, ever. A 310 HP / 300 lb-ft of Torque Mustang requires no excuse to exist.
I recently watched a road test of an early 1990's Porsche 944 Turbo published by Motor Week where the 210 HP / 260 ft-lb 2.5L turbo was the 'gold standard' of sports cars for performance. I remember when I worked as a corner worker at a local road course back in those days when the 944 Turbo's and the Corvette's would duke it out in some spectacular tire shredding racing. Sometimes the Corvettes would win, sometimes the 944's.
Now I am not that naive in my thinking that a comparison between a 1991 944 Turbo and a 2015 Mustang Ecoboost is somehow relavent; there should be a performance improvement in 24 years, right? However, that 944 Turbo was $35k in 1991 dollars and the 2015 Mustang Ecoboost is $24k in 2015 dollars. Also, keep in mind that the 944 Turbo still turns heads as a 'real' sports car. People trash talking the Mustang Ecoboost are not real car people in my opinion; they do not understand what a significant car this is. Its performance dwarfs a mountain of 'real' muscle and performance cars and not all of them ancient relics. Pre-Coyote Mustang GT's, for instance, would struggle against this car. The 2015 Mustang Ecoboost with the Performance Package would make a daunting road course car!
As far as the history of the 4 cylinder Mustang is concerned it dates all the way back to 1974, 41 years ago. It grew a turbo in 1979. I remember my oldest brother bought a 1979 Mustang Turbo which, naturally, we modified. Back in 1979 the wastegate was mechanical and worked directly by intake pressure. We modified the wastegate to elevate the boost pressure and ran into serious detonation issues. We cured the detonation with water injection and that car was a road going terror. WOT runs produced clouds of steam and smoking tires.
Now everything is electronic and can be changed with calibration tweaks. I wonder how long it will be before water injection kits start to show up to allow horrendous boost pressures? In the meantime, a 310 HP / 300 ft-lb Mustang is something that is pretty easy to enjoy no matter how many cylinders it has! It is also a bargain purchase. Maybe that is the real reason for the criticism; the existence of the Ecoboost is perceived as a threat in much the same way those Corvette owners used to perceive a threat from the 944 Turbo's. Not to worry, those vintage Corvette's still turn heads too; there is room for us all!
I recently watched a road test of an early 1990's Porsche 944 Turbo published by Motor Week where the 210 HP / 260 ft-lb 2.5L turbo was the 'gold standard' of sports cars for performance. I remember when I worked as a corner worker at a local road course back in those days when the 944 Turbo's and the Corvette's would duke it out in some spectacular tire shredding racing. Sometimes the Corvettes would win, sometimes the 944's.
Now I am not that naive in my thinking that a comparison between a 1991 944 Turbo and a 2015 Mustang Ecoboost is somehow relavent; there should be a performance improvement in 24 years, right? However, that 944 Turbo was $35k in 1991 dollars and the 2015 Mustang Ecoboost is $24k in 2015 dollars. Also, keep in mind that the 944 Turbo still turns heads as a 'real' sports car. People trash talking the Mustang Ecoboost are not real car people in my opinion; they do not understand what a significant car this is. Its performance dwarfs a mountain of 'real' muscle and performance cars and not all of them ancient relics. Pre-Coyote Mustang GT's, for instance, would struggle against this car. The 2015 Mustang Ecoboost with the Performance Package would make a daunting road course car!
As far as the history of the 4 cylinder Mustang is concerned it dates all the way back to 1974, 41 years ago. It grew a turbo in 1979. I remember my oldest brother bought a 1979 Mustang Turbo which, naturally, we modified. Back in 1979 the wastegate was mechanical and worked directly by intake pressure. We modified the wastegate to elevate the boost pressure and ran into serious detonation issues. We cured the detonation with water injection and that car was a road going terror. WOT runs produced clouds of steam and smoking tires.
Now everything is electronic and can be changed with calibration tweaks. I wonder how long it will be before water injection kits start to show up to allow horrendous boost pressures? In the meantime, a 310 HP / 300 ft-lb Mustang is something that is pretty easy to enjoy no matter how many cylinders it has! It is also a bargain purchase. Maybe that is the real reason for the criticism; the existence of the Ecoboost is perceived as a threat in much the same way those Corvette owners used to perceive a threat from the 944 Turbo's. Not to worry, those vintage Corvette's still turn heads too; there is room for us all!
3/22/15, 09:36 PM
#16
My disdain (sic) lies not with the Ecoboost or the car itself but rather with the tricks and subterfuge with which Ford introduced it. These include not allowing a Premium V6, for example, lowering the power and mileage ratings of the V6 or not sending out V6 Mustangs for journalists to evaluate and compare. In my opinion, if the Ecoboost is all that it is claimed to be, it will suceed in direct competition with the V6 without the playing field tilted in it's favor.
The thing that's lost in all of this and what Ford seems to want people to forget is that the 3.7L V6 is a great motor on it's own merits. It gets good mileage. It's reliable. It's smooth and revs easily. It makes power right to it's redline, where I want the engine to play when it's time to have fun and so unlike the Ecoboost that goes to sleep at 5k rpm.
I find it especially interesting that the Mustang II (the original non-Mustang Mustang) justifies the existence of the Ecoboost. My first car was a Mustang II. I owned a 98 hp 4 cyl. Fox Mustang. I've had a few V6 Mustangs including the horrible 3.8L V6. Ford hyped the Ecoboost. People bought the Ecoboost and are now making videos to justify that decision. I get what you are trying to say. I too have owned Mustangs with unfortunate engine choices. Don't let it get you down. There's always next time.
The thing that's lost in all of this and what Ford seems to want people to forget is that the 3.7L V6 is a great motor on it's own merits. It gets good mileage. It's reliable. It's smooth and revs easily. It makes power right to it's redline, where I want the engine to play when it's time to have fun and so unlike the Ecoboost that goes to sleep at 5k rpm.
I find it especially interesting that the Mustang II (the original non-Mustang Mustang) justifies the existence of the Ecoboost. My first car was a Mustang II. I owned a 98 hp 4 cyl. Fox Mustang. I've had a few V6 Mustangs including the horrible 3.8L V6. Ford hyped the Ecoboost. People bought the Ecoboost and are now making videos to justify that decision. I get what you are trying to say. I too have owned Mustangs with unfortunate engine choices. Don't let it get you down. There's always next time.
3/22/15, 10:42 PM
#17
Mach 1 Member
My disdain (sic) lies not with the Ecoboost or the car itself but rather with the tricks and subterfuge with which Ford introduced it. These include not allowing a Premium V6, for example, lowering the power and mileage ratings of the V6 or not sending out V6 Mustangs for journalists to evaluate and compare. In my opinion, if the Ecoboost is all that it is claimed to be, it will suceed in direct competition with the V6 without the playing field tilted in it's favor.
The thing that's lost in all of this and what Ford seems to want people to forget is that the 3.7L V6 is a great motor on it's own merits. It gets good mileage. It's reliable. It's smooth and revs easily. It makes power right to it's redline, where I want the engine to play when it's time to have fun and so unlike the Ecoboost that goes to sleep at 5k rpm.
I find it especially interesting that the Mustang II (the original non-Mustang Mustang) justifies the existence of the Ecoboost. My first car was a Mustang II. I owned a 98 hp 4 cyl. Fox Mustang. I've had a few V6 Mustangs including the horrible 3.8L V6. Ford hyped the Ecoboost. People bought the Ecoboost and are now making videos to justify that decision. I get what you are trying to say. I too have owned Mustangs with unfortunate engine choices. Don't let it get you down. There's always next time.
The thing that's lost in all of this and what Ford seems to want people to forget is that the 3.7L V6 is a great motor on it's own merits. It gets good mileage. It's reliable. It's smooth and revs easily. It makes power right to it's redline, where I want the engine to play when it's time to have fun and so unlike the Ecoboost that goes to sleep at 5k rpm.
I find it especially interesting that the Mustang II (the original non-Mustang Mustang) justifies the existence of the Ecoboost. My first car was a Mustang II. I owned a 98 hp 4 cyl. Fox Mustang. I've had a few V6 Mustangs including the horrible 3.8L V6. Ford hyped the Ecoboost. People bought the Ecoboost and are now making videos to justify that decision. I get what you are trying to say. I too have owned Mustangs with unfortunate engine choices. Don't let it get you down. There's always next time.
As for what was said by Boss I wish Ford would have kept the V6 as base and just added a echoboost V6 as the mid range or maybe made the 4 cylinder the base.
Last edited by SpeedCostsMoney; 3/22/15 at 10:44 PM.
3/23/15, 12:56 AM
#18
"A Mustang II is a Mustang too!"
3/23/15, 06:44 AM
#19
V6 Member
Join Date: March 18, 2015
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ecoboost needs about as must justification for its existance as the 5.0L needs to justify why it isn't a real V8 like the big blocks of the late '60's. Add on aftermarket superchargers are just bandaids for the missing displacement!
If the 5.0L does not need justification for its existance, neither does the Ecoboost.
If the 5.0L does not need justification for its existance, neither does the Ecoboost.
Last edited by wildsailor; 3/23/15 at 06:45 AM.
