silvrsvt Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Assuming you are right how how much power can a 2.3T produce reliably? Will this be a Gen 2 eco boost with direct injection? There is a whole lot we dont know but I was thinking the 2.3T would be a base engine in a detuned state or possibly replace the 3.7? I'm going to go out on a limb and say its going to be one of the new Nano engines...IIRC scuttlebutt on the internet said that Ford didn't like the Mazda 2.3L setup when it came to boosted applications because it couldn't meet Ford's internal targets for longevity. I think the 1.6L and 2L are still on a shared block design with the Mazda I4 engines. Not so sure about the I3 EB engine though. The Mazda engine has been around for a while and wasn't really designed for Ecoboost (unlike the 3.5-3.7L V6) so a clean sheet I4 engine thats designed for Ecoboost should be able to put out more power without longevity issues. The Current Ecoboost 2.0L in the Focus ST puts out 246 HP out of 2L....roughly 123 HP per liter....so figuring a 10% improvement upon that and a bump in displacement, putting out just over 300HP shouldn't be an issue. If Ford can bump out power output to 150HP per L, your looking at 345HP...and that is only a 18% improvement over current numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I'd say the fact that people still know what the SVO is suggests that Ford can get a pretty nice premium for a 2.3L turbo as an uplevel trim. I'd expect the I4 to be marketed with an upgraded interior (say from a GT500 or highend GT interior) and price below what the GT starts at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 How is that? The IRS was pulled out at the last minute at additional cost to the program. Its not like the Mustang is getting a whole sale new platform...if anything its getting the platform it should have gotten in 2005. The first go around with then new S197 platform had sales expectations of only 100K units and sold well above that till the Economic collapse in 2008. In the mean time, the Mustang has gotten quite a bit more expensive then it did in 2005, and the sales haven't taken that big of a hit vs the additional competition and shrinkage in the market. Given a healthy car sales market, I don't think sales of 120-140K a year between NA and ROW sales is unexpected....with NA sales making up at least 85-90% of total sales The platform is becoming out of sync with Global supplier volume, and losing its Economies of scale with Global bread winners like CD3 etc. the redesign will entail upgraded and improved frontal structure complete reskin movement of Structural hard points upgrade and extensive use of UHSS and HSS steels optimization of unibody to minimize weight and maximize crash protection. Redesigned Rear floor pan to accommodate IRS IRS module (global) RHD (Global) Meet All EU crash standards. in comparison with the 2012 Focus complete re-skin upgrade and extensive use of UHSS and HSS steels optimization of uni-body to minimize weight and maximize crash protection. Redesigned Rear floor pan to accommodate AWD Redesigned center floorpan. The question is 70,000 units enough to warrant the investment? Even at 130,000 units per year it may not be enough to warrant the investment in a standalone platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 The question is 70,000 units enough to warrant the investment? Even at 130,000 units per year it may not be enough to warrant the investment in a standalone platform. But the issue is that IRS design work has been done already, just not implemented. I'm sure that the cost of the IRS isn't as great as you think it is and it was a sunk cost that was paid for already in the S197 design. Its just a matter of digging up the CAD files and tweaking them in a very general sense. As for the rest of what your talking about...we haven't seen any indication of structural changes to the prototypes that would require hardpoints to be moved. The front end has been modified to a point, but from what I've seen in the spy photos, it was change from the crash structure forward to incorporated the new nose on the car... As for crash standards....I'd go out on a limb and say that it seems like the US standards are tougher then EU regulations and the overall cost of doing isn't as much as you think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 But the issue is that IRS design work has been done already, just not implemented. I'm sure that the cost of the IRS isn't as great as you think it is and it was a sunk cost that was paid for already in the S197 design. Its just a matter of digging up the CAD files and tweaking them in a very general sense. As for the rest of what your talking about...we haven't seen any indication of structural changes to the prototypes that would require hardpoints to be moved. The front end has been modified to a point, but from what I've seen in the spy photos, it was change from the crash structure forward to incorporated the new nose on the car... As for crash standards....I'd go out on a limb and say that it seems like the US standards are tougher then EU regulations and the overall cost of doing isn't as much as you think it is. The IRS design is not the same IRS design from a few years ago. The changes to the body are required move the platform forward into the 21st century .things like a Composite radiator mount, or a movable Cowl header. make the platform as flexible as the C and C/d platforms. Crash standards are at the core of platform design, you must update the crash systems designed before the UHSS to meet all global standards with the minimum amount of mass added to the design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 The changes to the body are required move the platform forward into the 21st century .things like a Composite radiator mount, or a movable Cowl header. make the platform as flexible as the C and C/d platforms. I think that's where you getting it wrong...Ford has said nothing about making the platform as flexible as CD4 or Focus platform...what in the hell else are you going to build off a Coupe platform? Turning it into a Sedan is out of the scope of the program. As for the composite radiator mounting....its not hard to integrate that into the current design....from the shock towers forward on the current platform are sacrificial sheet metal that makes the repair costs cheaper when the car gets into an accident or to change if the sheetmetal needs to be updated. How do I know this? I can point out the repairs done to my car when I had an accident with it....its not apparent at first, but if you take a close look you can tell thats how the car was designed. I think your expectations for the car are a bit more then what Ford wants to do with it. Ok the IRS might be different, but its not like going THAT different from what was planned for the car... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcthorne Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 No more guessing around. http://www.torquenews.com/106/ford-unveils-twin-turbocharged-50l-mustang-cobra-jet-sema Twin Turbo 5.0L in a OEM Mustang is not gonna happen. You misunderstood the quote. The quote stating that the twin turbo engine would not fit was before the SEMA show. The CobraJet proved it could be packaged. Development of that engine has continued since that time and its no longer a the NA 5.0 engine with turbos but a real EcoBoost 5.0 block/heads/turbo package. It exists and may eventually replace the aging and thirsty 6.8l V10 as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 After reading the lengthy debate about weather or not the Mustang will be well recieved in Europe I would just like to point out that Ford is the number 2 best selling brand across Europe. Based on that there are obviously a lot of Europeans that are not opposed to the idea of buying a car from an American based company. I personally would not base my opinion of European customers on the ramblings of those three dolts on Top Gear either. Who doesn't know that Jeremy Clarkson has been a ravid anti-American car hater for two decades now? His opinions are less than worthless. He's an entertainer who, like Howard Stern, has figured out that the best way to get ratings is to be controversial. Personally I'm glad that they are going to sell the 4 cylinder turbo Mustang in America. I think it's a great idea and I think it could even get some customers interested in a Ford sports coupe that would otherwise never even look at one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Um, they're not the #2 best selling brand in Europe, and account for less than 8% of the overall market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) Um, they're not the #2 best selling brand in Europe, and account for less than 8% of the overall market. Really? That's strange you should say that R J because Ford motor doesn't seem to agree. Ford Remains Europe’s No. 2 Best Selling Car Brand in 2012; New Product Rollout Continues in 2013 Ford remained No.2 best-selling car brand in its traditional 19 European markets for the fifth consecutive year http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=37591 By the way Ford is the # 1 selling brand in the UK. Guess Jeremy Clarkson didn't get the word out about how bad they are. lol Edited March 13, 2013 by BlackHorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Really? That's strange you should say that R J because Ford motor doesn't seem to agree. Key words: "It's traditional 19 markets" And regardless, their market share is about half of what it is in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) Key words: "It's traditional 19 markets" And regardless, their market share is about half of what it is in the US. LOL Pride is stubborn thing isn't it? It refuses to let one admit when they have been shown to be wrong. It's all good. As far as Ford's market share there vs here. So what. The US market is the biggest in the world and while VW is king in Europe, they don't do nearly as well here where GM is the biggest. At any rate, I'm through discussing it with you because as usual you are incapable of accepting the points of view of others, even when they are clearly right. I'm just glad that Ford is going to sell the 2.3 in the U.S. I think its the right thing to do and I think it's a good idea. I even wish them best of luck with it. Edited March 13, 2013 by BlackHorse 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 The US market is smaller than the Chinese market. And it was smaller than the European market in 2011. And if Ford is the #2 brand in Europe, it is the #5 manufacturer. And its EU sales were less than half of what it sold in the US. And the Ford brand accounted for only 7.5% of the whole EU market. But, congratulations for being one of four on your factual assertions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 The US market is smaller than the Chinese market. And it was smaller than the European market in 2011. And if Ford is the #2 brand in Europe, it is the #5 manufacturer. And its EU sales were less than half of what it sold in the US. And the Ford brand accounted for only 7.5% of the whole EU market. But, congratulations for being one of four on your factual assertions. LMAO!! Oh yes, do please lecture us about assertions. The man who claims that the Mustang will fail in Europe because all Europeans are really just a bunch of tribal racists at heart. Please tell me about assertions. LMAO. What a joke. Im outta here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 LMAO!! Oh yes, do please lecture us about assertions. The man who claims that the Mustang will fail in Europe because all Europeans are really just a bunch of tribal racists at heart. Please tell me about assertions. LMAO. What a joke. Im outta here. If you don't understand the difference between a statement that can be fact-checked ("US is the biggest market in the world") and a statement that is clearly one of opinion ("I think that..."), then I really can't help you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 European Registrations in 2012 ....LINK (registration required) VOLKSWAGEN AG ...... 3,112,304 PSA GROUP ..................1,465,009 RENAULT .......................1,052,824 GENERAL MOTORS ......1,007,304 FORD MOTOR CO. ...... .. 939,409 BMW GROUP ....................799,277 FIAT GROUP.. ............ ..... 798,542 DAIMLER AG .....................656,557 TOYOTA MOTOR .............540,990 NISSAN .............................432,411 HYUNDAI ...........................432,240 KIA ....................................337,466 VOLVO CAR CORP. ..........232,186 SUZUKI..............................154,446 HONDA .............................141,019 MAZDA .............................124,439 Jaguar ................................23,685 Land Rover ......................100,698 JAGUAR LAND ROVER.....124,383 MITSUBISHI .............. .........77,226 OTHER ...............................99,880 TOTAL .........................12,527,912 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) Really? That's strange you should say that R J because Ford motor doesn't seem to agree. http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=37591 By the way Ford is the # 1 selling brand in the UK. Guess Jeremy Clarkson didn't get the word out about how bad they are. lol Black Horse, under the term Brands , the VW Brand includes 8 makes - VW, Audi, Skoda, Seat, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and since Aug '12 Porsche. PSA Group Makes are Peugeot & Citroen Renault Group Makes are Renault, & Dacia GM Makes are GM, Opel, Vauxhaul & Chevy Fiat Makes are Fiat, Chrysler, Lancia, Alfa Romeo, Jeep, Dodge, Ferrari, Maserati Under the term Make, Ford is #2 in EU27*+EFTA (EFTA being Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) When comparing makes to makes, Ford is holding its own in a very unstable market. Edited March 13, 2013 by MKII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I think that's where you getting it wrong...Ford has said nothing about making the platform as flexible as CD4 or Focus platform...what in the hell else are you going to build off a Coupe platform? Turning it into a Sedan is out of the scope of the program. the cost differential in making these changes is not that great, and is paid for in the next redesign, which is much cheaper because of the platform flexible nature. Since the mustang is going to be built on the same line as the Fusion it may make sense there to ensure Its flexibility. Ford is repeating the mistakes of the past if they shut the door on a Sedan. without the name here is no business case for a RWD coupe platform that will sell less than 200k per year. As for the composite radiator mounting....its not hard to integrate that into the current design....from the shock towers forward on the current platform are sacrificial sheet metal that makes the repair costs cheaper when the car gets into an accident or to change if the sheet-metal needs to be updated. How do I know this? I can point out the repairs done to my car when I had an accident with it....its not apparent at first, but if you take a close look you can tell thats how the car was designed. There is a reason that there hasn't been a major redesign of the mustang since 2005 because the structure beneath the skin was too fixed to make cheaper redesigns possible. the upgrade to simple common sense improvements like a composite radiator mount, would be logical if you have to redesign the structure to accommodate new styling, that way the next redesign can be more dramatic without having the change the structure. this less to do about the 2015 mustang and more to do with the 2020 mustang. I think your expectations for the car are a bit more then what Ford wants to do with it. Ok the IRS might be different, but its not like going THAT different from what was planned for the car... I don; thinnk here is anything wrong with the high expectation that they will do this car the right way this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I don; thinnk here is anything wrong with the high expectation that they will do this car the right way this time. I think where your expectations are too high is that the underlying platform will be as significantly different from the current car as you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Ford is repeating the mistakes of the past if they shut the door on a Sedan. without the name here is no business case for a RWD coupe platform that will sell less than 200k per year. There is no real business case to purse a RWD Sedan at the moment...if anything its going sell even worse then the Mustang does...at what cost? The point your missing is the S197 platform was designed to be profitable at 100K units or so a year...it makes no business or profit sense to force the platform to become a sedan, because the end costs are going to drive out the profitability of the S197 away because it won't be able to shoulder the costs of it. There is a reason that there hasn't been a major redesign of the mustang since 2005 because the structure beneath the skin was too fixed to make cheaper redesigns possible. I think you need glasses...outside of the greenhouse (which is very expensive to change) the Mustang has been completely changed from the belt line down in 2009. The upgrades being done to the 2015 Mustang will allow it go on for another 10 years or so without any issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Back to the engine, it looks like performance wise this Eco 2.3 would be very close to the existing 3.7 V6. The 3.7 is an all aluminum engine with a composite intake manifold. I don't know and have not been able to find a weight spec for the 3.7, but it sounds like a turbo 2.3 might be almost as heavy, does any one have any idea about the difference? The 3.7 is rated at 31 on the highway, is the 2.3 really expected to do much better than that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Back to the engine, it looks like performance wise this Eco 2.3 would be very close to the existing 3.7 V6. The 3.7 is an all aluminum engine with a composite intake manifold. I don't know and have not been able to find a weight spec for the 3.7, but it sounds like a turbo 2.3 might be almost as heavy, does any one have any idea about the difference? The 3.7 is rated at 31 on the highway, is the 2.3 really expected to do much better than that? To add to that the Fiesta ST is only projected to get 34 mpg highway so whats the point again of a I4T that is going to cost more? Its not adding up from a dollars and cents standpoint and neither is the mpg based on what we know now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 To add to that the Fiesta ST is only projected to get 34 mpg highway so whats the point again of a I4T that is going to cost more? Its not adding up from a dollars and cents standpoint and neither is the mpg based on what we know now. The Fiesta has aerodynamic issues also since its smaller car and a completely different engine in it. So does the Focus ST. As for the Mustang...the V6 gets 31 MPG, but I'm sure it goes down if you get different gears in the car....I don't think 34-35 MPG is out of the question for the I4 EB Mustang... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The Fiesta has aerodynamic issues also since its smaller car and a completely different engine in it. So does the Focus ST. As for the Mustang...the V6 gets 31 MPG, but I'm sure it goes down if you get different gears in the car....I don't think 34-35 MPG is out of the question for the I4 EB Mustang... True but the Fiesta is 2700 lbs which is light compared to any Mustang. Yes, 2.73 geared Mustangs will get 31 and the option on the V6 is 3.31 which probably costs you 1-2 mpg in the real world. Its well worth it from what I hear though. I am seriously skeptical of your belief that 34-35 is possible but we shall see. There has to be some compelling reason to offer this engine at a premium. Not sure what it is now but I look forward to finding out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The Fiesta has aerodynamic issues also since its smaller car Please give us details about these "aerodynamic issues". 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.