Sevensecondsuv

A few. Most recent was an '05 Lincoln LS that got replaced by the town car when kid #3 came. Before that I had a '99 Pontiac Bonneville and a '96 Ford Contour. I really don't have any issues with unibody construction. My main beef is with fwd and sideways engines. The LS was great but it just wasn't big enough for three kids. On the flip side, the town car isn't nearly the downgrade in handling and performance relative to the LS that a lot of people assume it is.

Of course. I'm gonna have to jettison my turbo ranger in the next year or so. A reg cab ranger has too little utility at this 3-kid stage of my life to be worth it's license plate fee or parking space even if it costs me practically nothing additional to keep it. At that point I'll probably take over the town car from my wife. The only question then is cobra motor swap or custom turbo kit.....

A vehicle's useful life for me is determined solely by the condition of the the body. Once it's rusted out, it's a gonner. On the other hand, any mechanical/electrical issue on a 15+ year old Ford product can be fixed for a insignificant sum of pocket change and is never a reason to get rid of something. Personally, I've got a 2000 Excursion that I plan to keep for the next 60 years or so.

Honestly this makes more sense than trying to keep the mkz going since it's now on a dead-man-walking platform. They can use CD6 or next mustang (which could be the same thing?) instead of an old orphan fwd platform. Going RWD will only help move performance and driving dynamics to what's expected from a luxury make. I see this as a win/win way to continue to serve whatever market still exists for luxury sedans.

In any case, it sounds like the 6.2 I sticking around. So it's a moot point for the time being. That said, I see an opportunity to extend Ford's truck leadership and deliver very class leading fuel economy by replacing the 6.2L with a 4.x or 5.x atmo engine for the base powertrain in F250. A detuned coyote would work well if it can pass the durability tests. A mild hybrid added to the 3.3/3.5/3.7 might fit the bill too. There's a lot of F250s sold to fleets that never use the trailer hitch. The old 2v 5.4 was perfectly adequate for these trucks and the 6.2 is overkill.

A lot of gas F250 buyers will be scared off by the big displacement. Go look at sales split of the 5.4L and 6.8L when both were available. Or the 5.8L windsor vs 7.5L bbf back in the 80s/90s. Lots of buyers just want gasoline simplicity without the "big block fuel penalty" (even if this new 7.x doesn't actually do any worse than the 6.2 in fuel economy). Finding trucks with the big gas engine was always difficult because they just didn't sell well. I know literally dozens of guys who bought 5.4L E/F250/F350 because they were afraid of V10 fuel economy. As for myself, I always prefer the biggest gas engine offered in a 3/4 ton, but I'm not exactly representative of the market Now if both GM and Fia....errrr "RAM" drop the small blocks and go to 7L+ displacement as the only gas option, then Ford can just play along and buyers won't have a choice. As it sits now, it looks like GM doing this new 6.6L which is very similar to the approach Ford took in 2011 when they replaced both the 5.4L and 6.8L with the 6.2L (which only really worked in F250 as evidenced by the 6.8L still being in production).

But by the same reasoning, a 5.x engine using the same design/tech that allows such incredible fuel economy in the 7.x would deliver even better fuel economy. I just can't see Ford telling all F250 buyers they have to get 7.3L engine if they don't want the diesel. I get the distinct feeling we're still missing a piece of the puzzle.

Boy Ford sure has the lid clamped down tight on this one. How do we still not know what kinda valve train this thing has? It's also obvious that a smaller gas engine is going to be necessary in F250 at the minimum (and certainly welcome in E series and F350 too). Somebody, somewhere knows if the 6.2 is sticking around or Ford has something else up their sleeve.

I wouldn't be surprised see a de-stroked 7.3 or the coyote or possibly even a atmo V6+mild hybrid torque assist (like Ram has on their new V6) show up I F250/350 alongside the new 7.3. There's no way Ford is going to force every gas customer into the big 7.3L.

Hopefully this is just available, not standard on GT. Otherwise the days of Mustang being affordable power for the masses are over. I don't see how they add AWD and hybrid for less than $15k additional sticker.

Also, this "electrified f150" business smacks of a cheap shot at fixing the stock price after taking a royal beating yesterday. What do the analysts want to hear above all else? "Electrification!!!!!!" And what is Ford's cash cow? So just put the two together "electric F150" and it'll send all the analysts into a bad case of the vapors!

So this is what, the umpteenth MAJOR NEW plan to reinvent the company in as many months? I wonder what the shelf life of this plan will be? Ford executives appear to be floundering lately trying to figure out what to invest in. Two years ago it was all about autonomous and mobility. Of course that was never going to pan out in any major way. Now we're hearing much less about that and Ford has taken it's foot off that gas pedal. Then it was the diesel F150 was going to revolutionize the half ton market. And now you'd be easily forgiven for not realizing a diesel F150 exists. I suspect a bev F-150 sells even fewer than the diesel one. A hybrid one might sell, but only if it provides a useful 120v AC outlet capable of running big appliances/tools, not because truck buyers want prius parts in their truck. Ford would do well to focus on the fundamentals for a bit. Stop aiming for the moon and shooting themselves in the feet for awhile and just figure out what mainstream retail and commercial buyers want and honing their products to be best in class value/performance/quality. That model worked great for the last 100s years and it's exactly what they need to do now. Focusing on margins to the exclusion of everything else (especially competitiveness/quality of the product) never ends well. Get the product right and profits will follow.

You haven't lived until you've had to swipe the card 3 times to fill up a V10 excursion when gas was $4/gallon! It really changes your perspective on fuel economy though. All these people jumping off the EV cliff because "40 mpg just doesn't cut it when gas is $1.80/gal!" seem pretty ridiculous.....

True, but then again this is the GT500. One could ask the same question of the vehicle as a whole. Being the top dog in the lineup is the place to make such statements.

To an extent, you're right. A lack of displacement can be offset by boost, better flowing heads, or even nitrous (which we'll obviously never see on a factory anything). We see evidence of this in the factory ratings and 1/4 mile times. But the point stands that the coyote has a lower threshold for max hp before you have to throw crazy money at them than the LSx or Hemi motors do. A major contributor to that fact is the displacement disadvantage. In the end, Ford should be stomping all over their rivals given dohc and 4 valve heads. Instead they settle for something between even and just incrementally better. This new GT500 is what I'd call incrementally better than the ZL1 and Hellcat. I was just hoping for Ford to absolutely throw down the gauntlet with 900+ hp. A new 7.0L dohc aluminum engine sporting a 4+ litre blower would have made those numbers without breaking a sweat and would have been one heck of a statement.

Basically everything good old American Muscle is supposed to be! I get your point, but everyone and his brother already has a 700 hp supercharged coyote mustang. Heck the 700 hp supercharged coyote F150 is getting common. Meanwhile the Mopar boys are routinely exceeding 1000 hp with relatively minor mods to the hellcats. Ford's obvious answer to those statements is that this thing is actually street legal / epa-sactioned. Yes there's also that this is a 5.2 instead of a 5.0, but without the awesome flat plane crank, 0.2L doesn't really differentiate it from the other mustangs very much. I was just hoping to see an engine formula which was a far greater departure from the previous 9 model years of mustangs. It'd also be nice to see Ford finally put an end the displacement disadvantage they've suffered relative to their peers since the mod motor debuted in 1991.

Now you're talking!

Well obviously they'd have to do an aluminum block version if they were going to put it in any mustang/performance application. It's not like Ford hasn't done this in the past. The Windsors, FE/FTs, 385s, and Mods all saw double duty in truck and performance apps.

Why? Can't you imagine just how bonkers a modern, supercharged 7.0L engine could be? It's not hard to imagine the possibilities....

I'm fine with the dct for this model. Like others have said, if you want to row your own, just buy a GT and add boost. Would have really loved a 427 or 429 inch version of the 7.x though. The 5.2L certainly promises to be the fastest mustang yet and will hold it's own with the competition, but it still seems like a bit of a half-measure compared to what a new big block could/would have been.

Which is pretty much what it is at this point. This leaves the Chevy brand free to take an approach similar to the one Ford is taking.

It's certainly possible due to twice as many gears and it shifts faster than I can with the clunker M5OD, but there's still no reason the 2.7 couldn't be offered. The engineering and parts are already there since the 3.0 is identical besides displacement. I guess I'm just kinda surprised there's no engine option until you get to the highest trims. Seems odd for a high volume model in the upper half of the Ford lineup.

It's just that the 2.7 would be even better. I can see saving the 3.0 for Limited, ST, and Lincolns, but the 2.7 would give people buying a lower trim an engine option that provides a bump in power and refinement. Or is it possible the 3.3/3.5 atmo carries on as the base engine and 2.3eb is the optional upgrade like it is now? The 2.3eb is great but I'm spoiled by a similar level of power (300/300 ish) in my current turbo ranger that weighs about 1300 lbs less than a 19/20 Explorer.

I meant I want the 3.0L ecoboost. I realize 2.3eb or 3.5 atmo is plenty for most people, but I really like as much engine as possible. At the same time I don't need or want to pay for awd or high trim. There's also the issue of V6s being fundamentally smoother than inline 4s. Not that the 2.3eb has any NVH problems, just that the 3.0eb will be even smoother in the same vehicle.

So there's no V6 available on the 2wd ones at all? I've got nothing against ecoboost, just prefer the smoother V6 engine type and more power is always better. Unfortunately that might be a deal killer for me.