akirby Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 and the image wouldnt be as tarnished How long did the Mustang have a 220 hp (or less) V6 with horrible fuel mileage? Decades? How would more power with much better fuel economy hurt the image? You're not getting rid of the 3.7L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I just dont see the market...right now the 6 cyl is PERFECTLY adequate, why take a un-necessary step backwards, in this segment image is everything Who said the 3.7 would go away? I didnt' say that. If it's perfectly adequate in your eyes, then check that box on the order sheet. If people want better fuel economy than the 3.7 with very little hit to performance (and still far better performance than most previous Mustangs offered), it's a step forward for them. Image is a lot. But it's not everything. Livability has a lot to do with the Mustang's past success. It was an easy car to drive every day. Part of that for some people is having to pay for gasoline. And those looking for image certainly aren't going to be leaping at the prospect of having to buy a Fusion or Focus just to get the fuel economy numbers they were hoping a 2+2 coupe could and should be able to offer them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 The Probe went away because the SUV craze hit. As for the Mustang. It won't matter what the Mustang hp numbers are so long as the performance numbers are good. I'm sorry but Nick is right, if gas hits 4 dollars a gallon people aren't going to buy the car in enough numbers to justify keeping the plant open. A fuel efficient Mustang is in order and it can be done and that might even mean a 250 hp 4 banger. But...and hes the big but...how big a market is there for THAT car, sure, may gain some additional sales...but I dont see it setting anything on fire...especially when the ST focus is parked next to it at similar pricing.....say $28-29k... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Im not sure the Probe died solely because it was FWD....curious, what was the curb weight of the Probe...wonder how that would compare with what som,e here are assuming they will do to the mustang....sorry, I just dont think a 250ish RWD Mustang will strike any chords....even if gas gos thnrough the roof, I just dont think economy car and Mustang has the same clout as Mustang and performance for the buck.... Dean, don't forget that the majority of Mustangs sold are the V6 model. 34-35 MPG in a Mustang? I think it'd be a hot seller with skyrocketing gas prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 especially when the ST focus is parked next to it The Focus is not a Mustang. People wanting a Mustang (even those wanting the best fuel economy available) aren't going to be interested in the Focus ST or any Focus or anything except a Mustang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T'Cal Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I wonder just how much better an EB 2.0L I4 would get over the current NA 3.7L V6, which gets 19/31 with the automatic. Can the current Mustang, which is no light weight, get much better than 31 on the highway?? I would guess right now that this new plant would power one of the next special editions - the 2013 or 2014 SVO. After that, a version might be the base engine for the next gen Mustang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I suspect that what we'll see is a ~275 hp mustang with one of those nice and flat EB torque curves that gives as much or more area under the curve than the 3.7L V6. With that, you'd have quarter miles that are VERY close, 0-60 times that are also VERY close, and probably an even more tossable vehicle when fitted with the track pack. All of that will be on top of a few extra mpg in the city and on the highway. All in the name of meeting new, future CAFE rules. Heck, if the performance is close enough, I'd be in favor of Ford dropping the v6 to move as many sales to the most fuel efficient model possible, then offering an EB 3.5L v6 as an alternative to the GT's 5.0L. You can have the 5.0L v8, or, you can have this EB 3.5L v6 that gets better mpg and delivers as good or better performance. People will eventually learn to appreciate the EB v6 and you'll be able to improve CAFE compliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 the current Mustang, which is no light weight The Mustang has a footprint and weight roughly the same as the Fusion. I would think 20/30 is quite doable with the EB 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Hairdressers, Hertz, and sweet 16s need Mustangs too. Lots of Mustangs have been sold in its history by the style conscious that don't give a rip about how fast it is or isn't. As fuel prices go up, a model that costs less to operate will be on those peoples radar more than the few tenths it loses in ET. Entry level models that are pathetically slow don't hurt the models reputation. Top of the line models that don't measure up do though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 The Mustang has a footprint and weight roughly the same as the Fusion. I would think 20/30 is quite doable with the EB 4. So, you're saying the highway rating will go down with the EB 4 (the V6 is rated at 19/31). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) So, you're saying the highway rating will go down with the EB 4 (the V6 is rated at 19/31). Not necessarily. 20/30 is just so much catchier than saying '20/32' etc. Edited February 16, 2011 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) The Focus is not a Mustang. People wanting a Mustang (even those wanting the best fuel economy available) aren't going to be interested in the Focus ST or any Focus or anything except a Mustang. I just cringe it will cheapen the nameplate....the Mustang should remain all about performance...but then again, the 2.0 Explorer doesnt sit right with me as well, maybe I'm just anti 4 cylinder engines full stop in Muscle/ Sports cars or high curbweight LARGE cars....I hope to be convinced....and i dont think mustang buyers as a whole buy the car based on its fuel economy, thats just icing...its looks, performance and value.... Edited February 16, 2011 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I'm in a Mustang now and I have to tell you, Nick is right about the gas. If they release a Fiesta ST with the next model year, it's getting traded. Will your name change to BlackSombrero? :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I just cringe it will cheapen the nameplate....the Mustang should remain all about performance...but then again, the 2.0 Explorer doesnt sit right with me as well, maybe I'm just anti 4 cylinder engines full stop in Muscle/ Sports cars or high curbweight LARGE cars....I hope to be convinced....and i dont think mustang buyers as a whole buy the car based on its fuel economy, thats just icing...its looks, performance and value.... The world is changing my friend. Economy will now become part of the equation even on cars like the Mustang. Unless it's a complete dog (which I don't believe it will be), it won't cheapen the brand at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 As for insurance rates, an I4 isn't going to change the Mustang insurance rates....if anything the Mustang has been blessed with an older demographic buying them, thus making them cheaper to insure (not to mention Ford made them cheaper to fix supposedly after an accident according to some article I saw years ago after the 2005s came out) How else do you explain my insurance going down nearly $500 a year from a Focus SVT to a 2006 Mustang GT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 The world is changing my friend. Economy will now become part of the equation even on cars like the Mustang. Unless it's a complete dog (which I don't believe it will be), it won't cheapen the brand at all. I certainly hope what you say is true...I dont want to see a Ford Mus-celica.....or Mu-subaru or Mitsu-stang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 As for insurance rates, an I4 isn't going to change the Mustang insurance rates....if anything the Mustang has been blessed with an older demographic buying them, thus making them cheaper to insure (not to mention Ford made them cheaper to fix supposedly after an accident according to some article I saw years ago after the 2005s came out) How else do you explain my insurance going down nearly $500 a year from a Focus SVT to a 2006 Mustang GT! Geezer rates.....lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 the Mustang should remain all about performance Previous base engines have included the 200 cid 6 (no performance), 2.3L 4 (no performance), 3.8L V6 (no performance and horrendous reliability), and the 4.0L V6 (German employment program engine). The 3.7L 300+hp V6 is the first time the Mustang has *ever* had what could be considered a high performance base engine. A 2.0L EB 4 that offers comparable performance and better fuel economy will in no way cheapen a vehicle that as recent as a year ago had a base engine that could trace its roots back to 1967. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Previous base engines have included the 200 cid 6 (no performance), 2.3L 4 (no performance), 3.8L V6 (no performance and horrendous reliability), and the 4.0L V6 (German employment program engine). The 3.7L 300+hp V6 is the first time the Mustang has *ever* had what could be considered a high performance base engine. A 2.0L EB 4 that offers comparable performance and better fuel economy will in no way cheapen a vehicle that as recent as a year ago had a base engine that could trace its roots back to 1967. dont forget though Richard...I believe at the time with that 4.0 it was still the fastest 0-60 2 dr coupe under 20k correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 Geezer rates.....lol LOL hey I was only 31 when I got the car :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 LOL hey I was only 31 when I got the car :P off topic...the damn Fiesta runs me $1200 a year!!!! thats more than the SUPERCHARGED Cooper!!!!! no tickets no nuttin...ridiculous out here in So Cal.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 off topic...the damn Fiesta runs me $1200 a year!!!! thats more than the SUPERCHARGED Cooper!!!!! no tickets no nuttin...ridiculous out here in So Cal.... New Car without much insurance history behind it? I went from $1600 for a 2002 SVT Focus to $1100 on my Mustang....the Mustang went back up to $1600 after a 10K accident and for some stupid reason a damn seatbelt ticket came up after I got pulled over for speeding! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang let back Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 i vote for a 425hp twin turbo v6!!the mustang gt goes to 500hp,the BOSS to 550,and the GT500 650hp. :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Previous base engines have included the 200 cid 6 (no performance), 2.3L 4 (no performance), 3.8L V6 (no performance and horrendous reliability), and the 4.0L V6 (German employment program engine). The 3.7L 300+hp V6 is the first time the Mustang has *ever* had what could be considered a high performance base engine. A 2.0L EB 4 that offers comparable performance and better fuel economy will in no way cheapen a vehicle that as recent as a year ago had a base engine that could trace its roots back to 1967. Alright, I've had just about enough of you bad mouthing my 4.0. LOL Seriously though, it still has plenty of performance, I average 19 mpg around town and the thing is nearly bullet proof. I have no complaints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Alright, I've had just about enough of you bad mouthing my 4.0. LOL Seriously though, it still has plenty of performance, I average 19 mpg around town and the thing is nearly bullet proof. I have no complaints. have you driven the 3.7?...smooooooooooooooooooth....although never been a fan of the mustangs clutch takeup. takes awee while for me to adjust, guess I'm initially too gentle.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.