FordBlooded

I was just reading the latest news about Ford sales dropping slightly, including the Mustang, and it gave me an idea: How about an optional E-85 FFV Mustang GT? Actually, how about both a 4.0L FFV V6 Mustang for those on a budget and a 4.6L FFV V8 in the Mustang GT for the muscle car enthusiasts? I don't know how well E85 would work in a muscle car, but it seems to do fine in the F150, and it did well in the Taurus. Plus it would be a cheap, easy, NEW option for the 2007/08 model year and good competition for GM's new "Go Yellow" campaign. More performance, fun, and environmental appeal for right now. No, I haven't done a market study on E85--it's just an idea. What do you think? Anyway, if anyone in Ford V-Engine Engineering is looking to create an even stronger emotional appeal to keep Mustang sales up this summer with today's rising gas prices, please pass this idea along. This is a big "IF", but I keep driving by two local Ford dealers every single day and their new 2006 Mustangs are not moving. Neither are their Five Hundreds. This idea could help kick-start some sales when regular unleaded hits $3.50+/gallon. Just remember where you got the idea---that is if someone else at POEE hasn't already considered it. If it works, then I'll take my FFV V8 Premium GT in Vista Blue with a 5-speed manual and charcoal leather, please. (j/k) All kidding aside, I like the new line-up (Fusion, Milan, Edge, Aviator, Escape, Mustang, etc.) and would like to see Ford gain market share, not lose it. These are very good vehicles. Would E85 work in the new 3.5L V6? How about a direct injected, 3.5L E85 FFV V6 Edge, Five Hundred, or Fusion---or Mustang? Add AWD in some of those vehicles in the Snow Belt states and you've got a win-win seller! To the Anti-E85 bandwagon - I already know that E85 is less efficient, thanks. I'm proposing an idea to help diversify America's Fuel Portfolio, potentially reducing our dependency and costs to defend foreign oil by 10-25%.

I was just reading the latest news about Ford sales dropping slightly, including the Mustang, and it gave me an idea: How about an optional E-85 FFV Mustang GT? Actually, how about both a 4.0L FFV V6 Mustang for those on a budget and a 4.6L FFV V8 in the Mustang GT for the muscle car enthusiasts? I don't know how well E85 would work in a muscle car, but it seems to do fine in the F150, and it did well in the Taurus. Plus it would be a cheap, easy, NEW option for the 2007/08 model year and good competition for GM's new "Go Yellow" campaign. More performance, fun, and environmental appeal for right now. No, I haven't done a market study on E85--it's just an idea. What do you think? Anyway, if anyone in Ford V-Engine Engineering is looking to create an even stronger emotional appeal to keep Mustang sales up this summer with today's rising gas prices, please pass this idea along. This is a big "IF", but I keep driving by two local Ford dealers every single day and their new 2006 Mustangs are not moving. Neither are their Five Hundreds. This idea could help kick-start some sales when regular unleaded hits $3.50/gallon. Just remember where you got the idea---that is if someone else at POEE hasn't already considered it. If it works, then I'll take my FFV V8 Premium GT in Vista Blue with a 5-speed manual and charcoal leather, please. (j/k) All kidding aside, I was already a "Ford Guy" long before I started as a Ford supplier engineer. (I couldn't help it. Must've been the sound of that 351 Cleveland V8 in my dad's '71 Mustang.) All 3 cars I've owned were Fords, and my V8 T-Bird has 143,000 trouble-free miles on it, still going strong. Anyway, I like the new line-up (Fusion, Milan, Edge, Aviator, Escape, Mustang, etc.) and would like to see Ford gain market share, not lose it. These are very good vehicles. Would E85 work in the new 3.5L V6? How about a direct injected, 3.5L E85 FFV V6 Edge, or Fusion---or Mustang? OK, I'll stop. To the Anti-E85 bandwagon - I already know that E85 is less efficient, thanks. I'm proposing an idea to help diversify America's Fuel Portfolio, potentially reducing our dependency and costs to defend foreign oil by 10-25%.