Next Gen Mustang to get Nano V6 and IRS

[jpd80]

Or both? NA 2.7 for extreme base engine (think just below today's 3.7, but better than the 4.2 of a few years back) and EB 2.7 to replace the current 5.0?

Currently, 3.7 single cab F150 is 4680 lbs, with rumored reductions in weight, that may be closer to T6 Ranger's weight,

a dual cab T6 with 2.5 I-4 2WD is just under 4,000 lbs, so a 4200 lb 2.7 V6 F150 Single Cab might just fly as a rock bottom base...

[StevenCaylor]

Did anyone seriously consider the Escort GT to be something of a performance vehicle? At least the Focus ST puts up decent numbers.

 

Then again, different eras. The "base" engine in the Mustang performs better than a lot of the previous V8's did, so who knows how they might co-mingle on the sales floor.

 

Actually, yes they did. I had an 83 Lynx RS. That was the first year of the then modern 88 hp GTs with port EFI (Ford's first) and a 5-speed vs 4-speed manual. I remember the 0-60 time tested at 11.3 seconds, which was considered quick for a small car. It also came with the TRX wheel/tire package, same as the Mustang GT. The other engines available that year were rated at 55 hp (diesel), 1.6L 2V with 69 hp and an HO 1.6L 2V with 80 hp.

[NickF1011]

Actually, yes they did. I had an 83 Lynx RS. That was the first year of the then modern 88 hp GTs with port EFI (Ford's first) and a 5-speed vs 4-speed manual. I remember the 0-60 time tested at 11.3 seconds, which was considered quick for a small car. It also came with the TRX wheel/tire package, same as the Mustang GT. The other engines available that year were rated at 55 hp (diesel), 1.6L 2V with 69 hp and an HO 1.6L 2V with 80 hp.

 

Such sad times those must have been. :P

[BlackHorse]

Such sad times those must have been. :P

 

As some have pointed out, yes the Escort GT was considered something of a performance car for that time and no they most certainly were not sad times. From an automotive standpoint they were much better times than today. I can recall back in the late 80's to early 90's that Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds and even Escort GT's were everywhere. You couldn't go down the road without seeing tons of them. There were also numerous other sports coupes that were popular in that time like the Daytona, and the newly introduced Eclipse / Talon / Laser. God those were all over the place. Celica's and Corolla GTS and Honda CRX's galore. And lets not forget the Probe. These were the kind of cars you saw all over the place and that's because at that time a young man could afford to go out and buy an entry level sports coupe and have fun with it. Now you need to make 60 grand a year just to get yourself a V6 Mustang. Trust me, these are the sucky years for cars and back during the time of the Escort GT was far better. They may not have performed as well as these modern versions, but at least you could afford to buy one and there were numerous options to choose from. Once the SUV and the midsize sedan took over then the automotive landscape turned into bland,bloated, boring and entirely uninspired. There's nothing fun about today's cars. Nothing.

 

 

 

PS, I forgot to mention the Prelude, Fiero, RX7, and Conquest / Starrion. Yep, much better days.

Edited September 4, 2012 by BlackHorse

[twmalonehunter]

Haha every car you mentioned was junk compared to todays cars. They fell apart in a few years time and the performance was a fraction of what is the norm nowadays. Try again.

[Deanh]

As some have pointed out, yes the Escort GT was considered something of a performance car for that time and no they most certainly were not sad times. From an automotive standpoint they were much better times than today. I can recall back in the late 80's to early 90's that Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds and even Escort GT's were everywhere. You couldn't go down the road without seeing tons of them. There were also numerous other sports coupes that were popular in that time like the Daytona, and the newly introduced Eclipse / Talon / Laser. God those were all over the place. Celica's and Corolla GTS and Honda CRX's galore. And lets not forget the Probe. These were the kind of cars you saw all over the place and that's because at that time a young man could afford to go out and buy an entry level sports coupe and have fun with it. Now you need to make 60 grand a year just to get yourself a V6 Mustang. Trust me, these are the sucky years for cars and back during the time of the Escort GT was far better. They may not have performed as well as these modern versions, but at least you could afford to buy one and there were numerous options to choose from. Once the SUV and the midsize sedan took over then the automotive landscape turned into bland,bloated, boring and entirely uninspired. There's nothing fun about today's cars. Nothing.

 

 

 

PS, I forgot to mention the Prelude, Fiero, RX7, and Conquest / Starrion. Yep, much better days.

you need to go drive a Focus St and get back to us...car is a hoot, and borders on almost TOO refined.....

[BlackHorse]

Haha every car you mentioned was junk compared to todays cars. They fell apart in a few years time and the performance was a fraction of what is the norm nowadays. Try again.

 

What are you 17 years old? Ok, the Daytona was junk, what do you expect from Chrysler? But the Prelude, CRX, Celica, and Corolla GTS were exceptionally well built cars that lasted for many years. A personal friend of mine bought a Ford Probe brand new and put 197 thousand miles on it before he got rid of it and it was still running fine then. The Escort GT's and 4 cylinder Mustangs were middle of the road reliable but I still see some 4 banger stangs on the road around here even today. Early years of the Fiero with the 4 cylinder were trouble prone. By the time Pontiac got the car straightened out it was too late, the car had been branded. But later year Fiero GT's with the V6 were reliable cars and fun to drive. In fact just down the road from me is a place that specializes in restoring old Fieros. Camaro's and Firebirds from that era were 50 / 50 and it mostly depended on how the owner took care of the car. Still, there are plenty of each that are still on the road around here. If you took care of the them, they would last just fine. And finally the biggest problem with early year RX7's was that the seals in the motor would go out after about 80K miles. So this notion that all the cars form that era were junk is pure BS. They made some very reliable cars back then just as they do now. I'm not denying that many of today's cars are well built, etc. etc. But the automotive landscape of today just isn't as interesting and varied as what we had in the 80's and 90s and that's just the way it is.

[snooter]

ford mucks up the stang and we will never again set foot on a ford dealership..we love our fiesta (42mpg latest trip) but the stang gets turned into a liberal tree hugging democrat hippie mobile and we are gone 4-ever..i dont have a problem with a 4cyl stang especially due to current gas prices and would welcome such a move by ford..but I still want those who are willing and able to pay to have the option of the larger displacement motors (whatever the extra cost may be to the owner)

[SoonerLS]

But the automotive landscape of today just isn't as interesting and varied as what we had in the 80's and 90s and that's just the way it is.

Insofar as these days we really don't have any true s**tboxes being sold in the US; putting a 300hp engine in a car won't turn the chassis into a corkscrew; and 220hp isn't even table stakes for a mid-size family sedan V6, yeah, the '80s and '90s were just, like, totally so much more interesting.

[BlackHorse]

Insofar as these days we really don't have any true s**tboxes being sold in the US; putting a 300hp engine in a car won't turn the chassis into a corkscrew; and 220hp isn't even table stakes for a mid-size family sedan V6, yeah, the '80s and '90s were just, like, totally so much more interesting.

 

Horsepower is not the end all be all of what makes cars interesting. In fact you'll find that the older you get the less it matters.

[twmalonehunter]

I'm 43 not 17, and no horsepower does not get less important to me with age, I still like to go fast. And just because a car will "last forever" does not mean it is a good car. I have driven hundreds of cars over the years, and the majority of cars from that era would become rattle traps within 5 years. Especially domestics, but even a Honda Civic or Nissan Sentra. I just don't feel that those cars were put together nearly as well as today's cars. But you are correct that most of them would last long time if taken care of. I just hated the 80s and 90s cars.

All that said, my Dads 85 Chrysler Laser Turbo was quite the runner, I surprised many Camaros and Mustangs in the day, but what a piece of shit!

[NickF1011]

Horsepower is not the end all be all of what makes cars interesting. In fact you'll find that the older you get the less it matters.

 

The older I get the more horsepower my Mustang seems to be getting. I humbly disagree. :P

[BB390fe]

Well back in the day the 86 Escort GT put out 88HP vs 86HP in the 1987 2.3L Mustang I4 :P

 

I loved my Escort GT, but its also viewed through rosed colored glasses of being my first car :D

 

Hey now... Are you certain of your numbers??

I had an 87 2.3 L and it had 88 HP ( I am NOT giving up those 2 HP they were far too precious lol) - I believe the 87 escort GT had 110 HP ....( since even the damn Pony escort had 90 HP)

[SoonerLS]

Horsepower is not the end all be all of what makes cars interesting. In fact you'll find that the older you get the less it matters.

Hmm, I don't recall saying that horsepower was the be-all, end-all of anything. In fact, only one of the three things I mentioned was directly aimed at horsepower--the part about 300hp was about better-engineered chassis, not about the engines themselves. If you take the Coyote 5.0 from a '12 Mustang and stuff it into an '88 Mustang without doing something to reinforce the Fox's chassis, it won't be terribly long before the doors won't close properly. And we'll not even get started on the brakes and other safety gear, ride quality, NVH standards, or handling...

Edited September 5, 2012 by SoonerLS

[Edstock]

hoserpower was the be-all, end-all of anything.

 

Ah, Hoserpower!

 

[silvrsvt]

Hey now... Are you certain of your numbers??

I had an 87 2.3 L and it had 88 HP ( I am NOT giving up those 2 HP they were far too precious lol) - I believe the 87 escort GT had 110 HP ....( since even the damn Pony escort had 90 HP)

 

Your right...it actually had a 108 HP from another webpage I found

 

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/escort_usa_1gen/escort_usa_1gen_gt_hatchback/1986.html

 

I found this too! This was my exact car I had!

 

 

Not sure if anyone remembers this, but back in the mid to late 1980s, auto manufactures where in the process of moving over to Acrylic based paint/base/clear coat, with VERY mixed results. I know from 1986 to 1991 or so, Ford changed the red on the Escort every year! The paint on my car oxided badly, so I had to compound the car every year...

[BB390fe]

Your right...it actually had a 108 HP from another webpage I found

 

http://www.automobil...hback/1986.html

 

I found this too! This was my exact car I had!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bJQJ1Cdpvs

 

Not sure if anyone remembers this, but back in the mid to late 1980s, auto manufactures where in the process of moving over to Acrylic based paint/base/clear coat, with VERY mixed results. I know from 1986 to 1991 or so, Ford changed the red on the Escort every year! The paint on my car oxided badly, so I had to compound the car every year...

 

That Mustang was Black - I never had a problem with the paint... but then I washed and waxed that thing twice a week (it was black after all)

Overall... I kinda miss that car - that hatch gave it so much utility - and I had my old stangs to run fast with...

[SoonerLS]

Ah, Hoserpower!

And I can't even blame the iPad for that one...

[mettech]

The bottom line on what engines the next Mustang will have is weighted more to the link below than historical mandates for a V-8 engine..

 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/79c090e81f0578738525781f0043619b/13f44fb4e2c2d39d85257a68005d0154!OpenDocument

 

Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standards/ Consumer Savings Comparable to Lowering Price of Gasoline by $1 Per Gallon by 2025

 

 

Release Date: 08/28/2012

Contact Information: THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

 

"...WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama Administration today finalized groundbreaking standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. When combined with previous standards set by this Administration, this move will nearly double the fuel efficiency of those vehicles compared to new vehicles currently on our roads. In total, the Administration’s national program to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels.

 

“These fuel standards represent the single most important step we’ve ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” said President Obama. “This historic agreement builds on the progress we’ve already made to save families money at the pump and cut our oil consumption. By the middle of the next decade our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle class families and it will help create an economy built to last.”

 

The historic standards issued today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) build on the success of the Administration’s standards for cars and light trucks for Model Years 2011-2016. Those standards, which raised average fuel efficiency by 2016 to the equivalent of 35.5 mpg, are already saving families money at the pump.

 

Achieving the new fuel efficiency standards will encourage innovation and investment in advanced technologies that increase our economic competitiveness and support high-quality domestic jobs in the auto industry. The final standards were developed by DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA following extensive engagement with automakers, the United Auto Workers, consumer groups, environmental and energy experts, states, and the public. Last year, 13 major automakers, which together account for more than 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States, announced their support for the new standards. By aligning Federal and state requirements and providing manufacturers with long-term regulatory certainty and compliance flexibility, the standards encourage investments in clean, innovative technologies that will benefit families, promote U.S. leadership in the automotive sector, and curb pollution.

 

“Simply put, this groundbreaking program will result in vehicles that use less gas, travel farther, and provide more efficiency for consumers than ever before—all while protecting the air we breathe and giving automakers the regulatory certainty to build the cars of the future here in America,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Today, automakers are seeing their more fuel-efficient vehicles climb in sales, while families already saving money under the Administration’s first fuel economy efforts will save even more in the future, making this announcement a victory for everyone.”

[NickF1011]

The bottom line on what engines the next Mustang will have is weighted more to the link below than historical mandates for a V-8 engine..

 

In the long term perhaps. I doubt it will be of any significant impact in terms of the upcoming generation though.

[silvrsvt]

 

 

Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standards/ Consumer Savings Comparable to Lowering Price of Gasoline by $1 Per Gallon by 2025

 

 

 

Its all smoke and mirrors....the 54.5 MPG rating is rated differently then what the actual EPA sticker says on the car. Not to mention that Hybrids/Electric cars/alternative fuels will also count towards that number.

 

You'll be lucky to see a car get 35 MPG real-world with the new standards.

[Anthony]

I had most of the cars listed in these past page worth of posts.

 

Still have one of 'em. My 1985 Pontiac Fiero. Of course, it has benefited from a bit of powerplant surgery. In place of the anemic 6 cylinder is a 400+hp 350 EFI V8. Definitely surprises a lot of unsuspecting folks.

[RichardJensen]

My 1985 Pontiac Fiero.

I have this amusing mental image of a wood paneled GM boardroom type meeting, with polyester suited execs discussing the feasibility of installing everything backwards on a Cavalier. "We could use the same floorpan! Just bolt the seats in backwards!"

[Anthony]

I have this amusing mental image of a wood paneled GM boardroom type meeting, with polyester suited execs discussing the feasibility of installing everything backwards on a Cavalier. "We could use the same floorpan! Just bolt the seats in backwards!"

 

Ha! They did cheap out in the original suspension. The rear suspension is a direct copy of the Citation suspension. It even has tie rods bolted down to a hard steering knuckle.

 

Doesn't matter really, when I get on the gas, steering is pretty optional anyway. It's basically got backwards torque-steer. I torque... the front end lifts... I can't steer.

[gatorbait]

please don't put another 4banger in a mustang. Just not right. If its about fuel economy, doesn't the v6 get over 30 hwy?