Sherminator98
-
Posts
25,526 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
140
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Sherminator98
-
-
6 hours ago, ehaase said:
To my aging eyes, the Escape is a more physically attractive vehicle then the RAV4 (though many here disagree), but I have confidence a RAV4 would go 200,000 miles with routine maintenance, while an Escape would have a major failure by 80,000 miles.
My past two Escapes would prove that not to be the case.
Though the strange thing is my sister had an almost identical 2010 Escape to my wifes-same color just a higher trim level and she had more problems with hers then my wifes
-
14 minutes ago, akirby said:
Not sure PHEVs are viable right now. There are multiple 2024 escape PHEVs available within 20 miles of me with $9k rebates.
Wouldn’t that partly be happening because of the 2025MY hitting the lots? -
20 minutes ago, rmc523 said:
I don't mind the new front end, but it gets worse as you go rearward, IMO.
The sides became more slab-sided/lost their detail. And the back, yikes. I'd have done the taillights differently.
Im wondering if the changes on the flanks with styling was because of this supposed sedan mustang?IMO the Mustang took steps backwards from the 2015 model onwards styling wise. The 2025 fixed that
-
14 hours ago, kach22i said:
I wish that I could say the more GM screws the pooch, the more Ford will succeed, but Toyota and Honda look to be the winners.
Americans are conservative, hybrids are the way to go.
I dunno maybe GM is getting costs down so much on EVs that they can make $$$ off them.
-
23 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:
We know Ford wants to do mustang hybrids, what if legend is a GTD motor with electric assist? You could easily produce 1,000 hp for that setup, and it would be an absolute monster in a straight line.
Ford might want to, but I don't think the extra weight of a hybrid setup would be really welcome.
IMO Hybrids would be better for the Ranger and Bronco first, then maybe a AWD hybrid setup for the Mustang Sedan.
-
12 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
My guess is "legend" is a detuned 5.2 from the GTD.
Why?
The F-150 Raptor R is rated at 720/640 and the GTD is 815/664
I don't think Ford would put that much "effort" into renaming an engine with name like Legend with just a software tweak.
I'm guessing it is going to be something different.
I'm guessing it might be a 7.3L with work done with it with 750HP or so
-
21 hours ago, Rick73 said:
I don’t have a dog in this fight and couldn’t care less what you guys drive. I have repeatedly stated that I “personally” don’t need EB power nor can I justify the higher cost based on fuel savings. To me that falls under preferences, though granted it implies NA is better for my needs, not necessarily others.
If you really felt that way, you wouldn't be sharing your option about it when ever you can either...
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, 02MustangGT said:
Counterpoint: you know who doesn’t know the actual ROI potential? Anyone on this board.
You have no clue how profitable a 4 door Mustang would be and neither do I. If you trust Ford to make the right decisions based on the track record, good luck. It really depends on the market that many manufacturers have decided is no longer worth pursuing. It’s all debatable and you can have an opinion, but that’s all it is. We shall see how this plays out, hopefully Ford produces a desirable product that keeps the Mustang name alive and well positioned for years to come. IMO, that’s the ONLY reason to produce a 4 door Mustang.
The Return On Investment shouldn't be an issue-the Sedan Mustang would share about 60-80% commonality with the coupe.
The Mustang platform is most likely already "paid off" investment wise-its a massaged S197 with IRS added 10 years ago and a deep refresh of the platform I think roughly at the same time. The S197 has been in production for almost 20 years and the IRS for half of that.
The only major unknown is the cost of designing an updated crash cell to have an additional 2 doors added to it.
Even if they just sell an additional 25-50K Mustang sedans, it would be worthwhile for Ford to do..this isn't 40 years ago where you had to sell 300K products to break even on them.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Rick73 said:
That’s ridiculous. Is this not a forum so that anyone can express opposing views. How goddamn boring would this place be if everyone had to agree on everything? We should all be thankful for diverse points of view as long as not written rudely.Its just as ridiculous as your views on turbo engines too. If you have an opposing view, bring your backup and references to help prove your point.
-
3
-
-
28 minutes ago, Rick73 said:
Reality sucks. Companies go bankrupt making bad decisions. If you think being a cheerleader helps, good luck with that.Bitching to just bitch about something isn’t helpful either.
A Mustang sedan is low lying cheap fruit, not a multibillion dollar gamble you make it out to be.
-
4
-
-
11 minutes ago, 92merc said:
You know what, I'm going to buck the trend and say all the pundits are wrong on this assumption.
I think the Mach-4 isn't going to be based on the Mustang platform or be a sedan. I think this will end up being a whole new vehicle based on C2. Same dimensions as the Nautilus. But it will have unmistakable Mustang influences.
My reasoning? Ford has stated in the past they are going to leverage their "heritage" branding. If they aren't going to use the Bronco name on a vehicle, they'll be using the Mustang branding, hence the Mach 4. The 4 not only references the four doors, but the 4 wheel drive. But it will be a CUV, not sedan.
But the first CE1 product is apparently a smaller pickup then the T3Not to mention Ford already has the Mach E to cover the Mustang name in the EV space.
-
Found these renders on Facebook-it looks
pretty good IMO
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, jpd80 said:
At the time of the Ford 2000 project, the head of large vehicle development, Ken Koors approached all vehicle teams for input regarding using DEW platform which was clearly developed by Jaguar.
- Ford Australia rejected it because too expensive for their Falcon product range- Mustang body shape and proportions were completely differnt but agreed to use part of the floo rpan
- Thunderbird ended up with MN12 because of similar cost concerns as FOA.
- Panther team rejected the idea because customers wanted /needed rugged BOF.
No MN12 was dead and buried before the Retro T-Bird, it was built off the DEW98 platform
-
2
-
-
53 minutes ago, rmc523 said:
Sure, but usually a newer model is able to buck that trend. We're seeing ultra low levels compared to the past.
I wonder if it still has supply chain issues like Ford was claiming in December -
Not to mention some the products with major drops are in the middle of refreshed product launches like the Maverick and Expedition
The Mustang is in a three month rut of sales shrinking but who really buys a Mustang in the middle of the winter north of the mason Dixon line too.
-
47 minutes ago, kach22i said:
I just looked up ground clearance and vehicle height for the Mustang Vs Dodge Charger, they were much closer than I thought. I stand corrected I guess. Not much will keep my brother's wife from complaining (haha - poor guy).
Charger has a 13 inch longer wheelbase though.
Goes to the point someone else made about other platforms more suited to the 4 door task.
The S197 is very distantly similar to the Lincoln LS platform and keep in mind that same platform was found under the Thunderbird of that era.
I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to make the current Mustang platform into a sedan and who knows, maybe future impact standards are going to require a redesign effort to the Mustang platform to meet those standards, so adding sedan will hopefully offset the costs of that.
-
11 hours ago, bzcat said:
It's very simple... Sales of coupe are headed to zero eventually but Ford needs to keep Mustang around because it is a sacred cow. These are the problems:
- CAFE compliance for the Mustang nameplate is impossible without longer wheelbase
- Flat Rock can only produce low profile vehicles
- Can't move Mustang production elsewhere because not enough volume to justify new tooling/production site
- Ford needs the Mustang name to be around because it is one of Farley's icons, along with Transit, F-Series, and Bronco. It is a lot more important to Ford than Camaro is to Chevy (for example)
So the obvious solution is the make a longer wheelbase Mustang (for CAFE) and build it in Flat Rock (because you have to keep the plant open).
How do you make a longer wheelbase Mustang? You make it a sedan. This is the only way the 2 door S650 lives beyond 2026 - as an alternate body style of the volume 4 door sedan.
Ford will need to flip the volume of Mustang to favor sedans and minimizes the CAFE penalty by controlling the number of coupe and convertible it will sell. You already see the early part of this plan to move the Mustang coupe upmarket with GTD and more special editions - this is how Ford will control volume on the CAFE killing coupe. Ford will keep reducing the availability of coupe but they need the sedan to provide the volume to keep the plant operating at minimal viable level.
With only minimal plant investment, I think Ford can make the 4 door Mustang breakeven relatively easily. They didn't do it before because they didn't need to. But now they do... otherwise they cannot afford to keep the Mustang coupe around.
Depending on CAFE is affected over the next few years, the current Mustang will be production till early 2030 or so and I think post 2032 or so it will finally move to an EV platform.
The next 10 years or so are going to be a shit show for most auto makers because of the changes in policy and pull back from EVs
-
10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
Didn't you own a Tarus sho? I've heard those things are pretty damn reliable, and surprisingly fun to drive.
Yeah that was my first Ecoboost product and I sold a few years back when I thought my Bronco came in. The FWD Ecoboosts have had water pump issues around the 80-100K mark.
My wife had a 2017 Escape with the 2.0L Ecoboost and 6F transmission-no engine troubles outside of mice eating the wiring harness and her transmission was acting up, but didn't need a rebuild or anything before she got rid of it last summer. She had over 127K on it. -
5 hours ago, blazerdude20 said:
This right here… we use Transit Connects for a fair number of our work vans. We looked at the Metris as an alternative small van, but it was so close in size to the regular Transit that it didn’t make sense. The Connect was small enough that you can park it in almost any parking garage downtown, even with a ladder on top.
The other issue i'm assuming was price-a Metris van started at 39K, so it was in the bad part of the goldie locks zone...too big and pricing wasn't the best for what you got. I'm guessing a Chrysler minivan cargo could be have for cheaper for roughly the same size.
I'm also thinking MBs luxury image didn't help it sell vans in the US market either.
-
On 3/1/2025 at 2:45 PM, danglin said:
Crazy that Tahoes are cheaper than PIU's !!
I’d like to see the math on that. A Tahoe starts at $59k but an Explorer is only $39k.-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Rick73 said:
I doubt there is good reliable data to compare since most manufacturers probably don’t want to share information on specific problems. Most comparisons I’ve read go on basis that an item that doesn’t exist can’t fail if not there, which is technically correct, but doesn’t paint the entire picture. Like you implied, it is a complex issue, as demonstrated by fact that even similar engines from different manufacturers have different failure rates and of different types. Not all pushrod V8s are the same, nor are GTDI engines.Anyway, below is comparison from Ford source so less likely to be biased. However, differences are not quantified. I copied paragraphs that address your question:
https://www.chalmersford.com/blog/ecoboost-vs-naturally-aspirated-engines
“Furthermore, due to their intricate design, EcoBoost engines may have higher maintenance costs than traditional engines. This is primarily because components such as the turbocharger and direct injection system can be more costly to repair or replace. Additionally, in certain instances, EcoBoost engines may necessitate the use of premium fuel, leading to increased operational expenses over time.”
and
“Many drivers appreciate the simplicity and reliability of naturally aspirated engines. These engines have fewer complex components than turbocharged ones, making them easier to maintain. This perception of reliability has contributed to the enduring popularity of Ford's naturally aspirated V-8 engines.
Another advantage of naturally aspirated engines is their lower maintenance costs. Without the turbocharger system and associated components, there are fewer potential points of failure and less complexity overall. This can lower long-term maintenance expenses, especially for drivers who keep their vehicles for many years.”
So I’ve had Ecoboost engines for over a decade I had no major issues with them and running premium as a choice I made due to tuning it.
otherwise maintenance costs where the same a gas engine.
both engines hit over 100k miles with no major failures.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, kach22i said:
It was so strange that every maker pulled out of the market at the same exact time.
If just one maker stayed the course they would have had the whole market to themselves.
I’m guessing it’s due to them being imported and CAFE issues. -
11 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:
As long as that weird looking hump in the roof isn’t there. There has to be a better way.I thought the old Transit Connect had a similar feature, but they just raised the roof up on it from the windshield back, so I'm guessing that is what they'll do here.
-
11 hours ago, 02MustangGT said:
That’s not the narrative I’ve read on this board for years. Sedans are dead, remember? The recent Fusion was not an “18k bottom dollar sedan”. I highly doubt Ford will sell more than 10k Mustang sedans per year on average. Seems more likely that this is an attempt to fill unused plant capacity, satisfy the UAW agreement, and potentially keep the Mustang brand alive (or Farley’s dream of making vehicles that aren’t considered “commodity products”).
But the Mustang sedan won’t be a 25k sedan with incentives to move it either. It will easily be double that and the Mustang coupe (which it would be 60-80% the same as) is profitable at a 30k price point-
2
-
Mach 4 Trademark Filing Suggests Four Door Ford Mustang Incoming
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
If anything I’d expect the Mustang to use a system similar to what the Corsair used or uses-a separate motor(s) to drive the front wheels.
AWD would be a major requirement for a sedan Mustang that would be more of a daily driver than say the coupe which would be normally a second or third car.