2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Tornado]

No one. That's why I qualified the original statement with "I'd think it would be" and ended the sentence with ellipses.

 

[Endless-Wilso]

To correct/add to what i wrote earlier the 5.4 will rev beyond 7k not limited to. It seems likely the line up will look like this.
350hp 2.3 I4
350-400hp V6
420-450 5.0 V8
Lets hope the guy @ Ford that R&T know wasn't just teasing.

 

[Slash]

To correct/add to what i wrote earlier the 5.4 will rev beyond 7k not limited to. It seems likely the line up will look like this.
350hp 2.3 I4
350-400hp V6
420-450 5.0 V8
Lets hope the guy @ Ford that R&T know wasn't just teasing.

I don't think this is too much to ask, at least V8 wise considering the Boss has 444hp.

 

[Wolfe]

A flat-plane crankshaft implies "new engine" to me. That's an interesting detail, if it's true. The Coyote is already an impressive revver, and like Eunos_Cosmo I'm not sure if they'll find an exhaust note that works for Mustang fans.

 

[White & Nerdy]

EDIT: Nvm

Also, big thumbs-down on the flat-plane crank. That's just plain wrong on a Mustang. Between that and the available turbo I4, plus adding a turbo to the V6, it would seem like they're trying to make it less of a muscle car.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Anyone that has an issue with the turbo 4 doesn't remember the SVO.

 

[Tornado]

Between that and the available turbo I4, plus adding a turbo to the V6, it would seem like they're trying to make it less of a muscle car.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Anyone that has an issue with the turbo 4 doesn't remember the SVO.

You mean the one very few people bothered to buy?

Point taken, though remember:

1. It was a special limited Indy edition (apparently some of the cars in that year's 500 used a racing version of the 231 turbo or something)

2. That was also a very special V6, taken directly from the GN (which was not known as the most normal of cars).

Either way, I'd take the contemporary Trans Am GTA. With a little junkyarding, getting a manual transmission behind that 350 wouldn't be problematic, and they're pretty easy engines to work with.

In this case, the sheer quantity of turbos is half the problem. It actually seems like they're trying to replace displacement in a muscle car though I wouldn't expect much different from the company that wanted to put a turbo I3 in a full size pickup truck

Also, muscle cars should use superchargers, not turbochargers. Fact.

 

[McLaren]

EDIT: Nvm

Also, big thumbs-down on the flat-plane crank. That's just plain wrong on a Mustang. Between that and the available turbo I4, plus adding a turbo to the V6, it would seem like they're trying to make it less of a muscle car.

A Mustang was never a muscle car to begin with.

 

[White & Nerdy]

A Mustang was never a muscle car to begin with.

Technically, not right at the beginning, but Ford joined the HP war soon enough. The Mustang actually sort of started the muscle car trend along with the Pontiac GTO, from a slightly different angle though.

 

[Tornado]

I doubt too many people who bought even the more pedestrian Regal T-Types (as opposed to the more exclusive Grand Nationals) were particularly upset that they instead didn't get the 305 that the Monte Carlo had or 307 that the Hurst/Olds came with when they blew away from them at the stoplights. GM spent 8 years telling people why turbo engines could work for muscle cars (real muscle cars, with powerful engines in intermediate bodies) 30 years ago, and they are some of the most beloved cars of the decade. Then they did it again with the Trans Am, and it is one the most sought after models of the entire nameplate. Then they did it again with a shoestring budget as a GMC; and come on. No one cares about any other S15 Jimmy.



The war is 20 years passed at this point.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Well, yes, the EPA was ruining V8s at that point - but by '87 the recovery had begun in earnest and the good old 350 was back and regaining its former levels of performance.

The larger Oldsmobile V8s, unfortunately, were never seen again because, by that point, GM had stopped allowing powertrain differentiation. Instead, each division would for the most part get the same engines, built by a seperate entity, GM Powertrain (which was just another way of saying Chevy). Cadillac and, in its later years, Oldsmobile would seem to achieve limited exemption, but it was too little, too late for the latter.

 

[dkong40]

A fully optioned out fiesta gets into Mustang territory and a fully optioned Focus gets into Mustang GT money. If you can purchase the car for around 20 grand, it's an entry level vehicle.

Plenty of people do because it's actually very practical. Where else are you going to get RWD, 300hp, and decent amenities for 20 grand? Answer? Not many places.

Far from true. Plenty of people purchase the V6 premium or V6 convertible + premium. Those easily creep into GT territory.

What makes you say that? Honestly. You have no clue in the world how much it costs to make those engines and implying otherwise is ignorant and dumb. Don't be ignorant and dumb. There's a reason the entry level mustang had a truck engine in it instead of a Duratec for almost 2 decades. It was much cheaper to go with what was had than convert a longitudinal V6 into a RWD car and people were still buying them. Only 3 years ago the V6 in the mustang was a 4.0 with 220hp. They're not ditching the 3.7 anytime soon for American markets, especially if it means further developing a 4cyl turbo which has no guarantees of being more economical or powerful.

First of all: Any "fully optioned" vehicle is NOT entry level.

Second: by practical I meant: no one bought a mustang because of fuel economy. If they wanted an economy car they'd buy a compact/subcompact. No one bought a mustang that regularly uses back seats--its even more cramped than the new challengers. People bought mustangs--regardless of model--because they wanted a frickin mustang, a fun car, a cruiser, whatever. The decent mpg and low cost (and a rather flimsy feeling interior) were just bonuses on the mustang name and heritage.

And 3rd: yes, I actually do have a decent understanding of how engine manufacturing works, and the fact of the matter is, a 4 cylinder has fewer components--pistons, valves, what have you-- but most importantly, the block is cheaper to produce than a v6 block, as the machining process is simpler because of various casting and milling simplicities you just sometimes can't have with a v6

Besides, global trends over the last 1-2 decades have shown that the v6 is on its way out, being replaced by more efficient 4 cylinders, except in trucks (which I see phasing out eventually anyway, as v8s become more and more fuel efficient) and certain Japanese performance cars, in which 4 cylinders won't cut it, and 8+ cylinders isn't a viable option.
Ex: ircc Toyota, doesn't even produce a 6 cylinder motor outside of its truck series anymore.

 

[playnthru]

Technically, not right at the beginning, but Ford joined the HP war soon enough. The Mustang actually sort of started the muscle car trend along with the Pontiac GTO, from a slightly different angle though.

No you don't! Don't lump that secretaries car in with a GTO.

That's all Ford had, so, that's what they tried using to keep up. The GTO started the muscle car movement (no sorta Ford). I'm not hearing this blasphemy.

 

[Kent]

First of all: Any "fully optioned" vehicle is NOT entry level.

Second: by practical I meant: no one bought a mustang because of fuel economy. If they wanted an economy car they'd buy a compact/subcompact. No one bought a mustang that regularly uses back seats--its even more cramped than the new challengers. People bought mustangs--regardless of model--because they wanted a frickin mustang, a fun car, a cruiser, whatever. The decent mpg and low cost (and a rather flimsy feeling interior) were just bonuses on the mustang name and heritage.

And 3rd: yes, I actually do have a decent understanding of how engine manufacturing works, and the fact of the matter is, a 4 cylinder has fewer components--pistons, valves, what have you-- but most importantly, the block is cheaper to produce than a v6 block, as the machining process is simpler because of various casting and milling simplicities you just sometimes can't have with a v6

Besides, global trends over the last 1-2 decades have shown that the v6 is on its way out, being replaced by more efficient 4 cylinders, except in trucks (which I see phasing out eventually anyway, as v8s become more and more fuel efficient) and certain Japanese performance cars, in which 4 cylinders won't cut it, and 8+ cylinders isn't a viable option.
Ex: ircc Toyota, doesn't even produce a 6 cylinder motor outside of its truck series anymore.

Agreed on 1,2, and 3 (for the most part).
However, I'm sure Toyota still produces a V6 Camry.

 

[Tornado]

And 3rd: yes, I actually do have a decent understanding of how engine manufacturing works, and the fact of the matter is, a 4 cylinder has fewer components--pistons, valves, what have you

A turbo 4 cylinder, which is what is actually being talked about because it is actually what is being put into the car, does not.

Ex: ircc Toyota, doesn't even produce a 6 cylinder motor outside of its truck series anymore.

You don't.

 

[Joel]

The Camry, Venza, Sienna, and Avalon are all available with V6's. The Highlander and 4Runner as well but you might link them in with the trucks.

 

[MrWednesday]

A turbo 4 cylinder, which is what is actually being talked about because it is actually what is being put into the car, does not.

Turbocharger (sourced externally as an assembly, probably from Garrett or Borg-Warner, and relatively simple mechanically). Presumably intercooler (one piece, plus an extra length of plumbing). Compared with two cylinders worth of pistons and valves and an extra bank's worth of of cams, timing control, intake, and exhaust manifolds. I think dkong40's point about relative complication stands.

 

[oopssorryy]

[QUOTE="dkong40]

And 3rd: yes, I actually do have a decent understanding of how engine manufacturing works, and the fact of the matter is, a 4 cylinder has fewer components--pistons, valves, what have you-- but most importantly, the block is cheaper to produce than a v6 block, as the machining process is simpler because of various casting and milling simplicities you just sometimes can't have with a v6
[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that retooling a factory, let alone the r&d of designing a new engine, out weighs the cost of production of a V6.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

I'm pretty sure that retooling a factory, let alone the r&d of designing a new engine, out weighs the cost of production of a V6.

Ford already produces turbo I4's.

 

[CodeRedR51]

V6's are not going anywhere. Mainly because they are especially good in hybrid applications.

 

[ShobThaBob]

EDIT: Nvm

Also, big thumbs-down on the flat-plane crank. That's just plain wrong on a Mustang. Between that and the available turbo I4, plus adding a turbo to the V6, it would seem like they're trying to make it less of a muscle car.

For all intents and purposes, the coyote is most easily built into a normal sports car engine. It doesn't have obscene amounts of torque and loves to rev. The bosses are going to 7600 and NA builds regularly see 8100 to 8300.

Turbocharger (sourced externally as an assembly, probably from Garrett or Borg-Warner, and relatively simple mechanically). Presumably intercooler (one piece, plus an extra length of plumbing). Compared with two cylinders worth of pistons and valves and an extra bank's worth of of cams, timing control, intake, and exhaust manifolds. I think dkong40's point about relative complication stands.

You're ignoring the fact that it actually has to be developed, assembly has to be developed and retooled, and parts have to be sourced.

Making something which is already being made is much less complicated than making something which isn't being made. There's also the reality that the 3.7 is used across the Ford lineup in loads of vehicles. The current turbo 4 is used in one vehicle. You think they'd develop a new one for exclusive use in the base Mustang? I think not.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Ford already produces turbo I4's.

Not any 2.3 turbo 4s. Certainly not any that make more power than the available V6 on regular gas.

 

[niky]

Turbocharger (sourced externally as an assembly, probably from Garrett or Borg-Warner, and relatively simple mechanically). Presumably intercooler (one piece, plus an extra length of plumbing). Compared with two cylinders worth of pistons and valves and an extra bank's worth of of cams, timing control, intake, and exhaust manifolds. I think dkong40's point about relative complication stands.

It's worth noting that a smaller engine with modern, variable geometry turbocharging system, along with the direct injection system it's packaged with, which is what allows it to run very lean under boost without grenading and the higher-strength block and internals to take the boost, costs more than a bigger naturally aspirated engine without direct injection and with lightweight "fuel saving" internals.

For the Explorer, the 2.0T is a $1k upgrade over the V6. It's a safe bet the 2.3T would be the same over a "base" V6 Mustang, unless Ford adjusts the price to hide the difference.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Let's also not forget that Ford has a reputation for keeping its engines around for a very long time. The modular 4.6 had been in use for nearly 15 years and was just replaced for 2011MY. It also saw the introduction of the 3.7. They're not going to scrap the 3.7 after a few short years of use.

 

[dkong40]

Let's also not forget that Ford has a reputation for keeping its engines around for a very long time. The modular 4.6 had been in use for nearly 15 years and was just replaced for 2011MY. It also saw the introduction of the 3.7. They're not going to scrap the 3.7 after a few short years of use.

Of course they won't scrap it, its still needed for Explorers, Tauruses, etc. It just may not be in the Mustang if a turbo 4 proves to be a better option

 

[ShobThaBob]

The turbo you're describe simply doesn't exist in a form that is a better powerplant for the base mustang. Why would the spend money to make something when what they have works great currently? Ford wouldn't.

 

[homeforsummer]

I've lost focus on this debate a little.

Are we saying that the Mustang won't have a turbo'd 4-pot? Or just that it won't be the base engine and the V6 will still continue in that role?

 

[ShobThaBob]

I've lost focus on this debate a little.

Are we saying that the Mustang won't have a turbo'd 4-pot? Or just that it won't be the base engine and the V6 will still continue in that role?

I'm saying that I highly doubt it'll be the base engine, and if it is, it certainly won't replace the 3.7 altogether.

 

[homeforsummer]

Gotcha. Was just getting hard to tell what points people were trying to make after the last few pages.