Fgts Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I highly doubt this also, Ford wouldn't spend probable billions of they know they can't sell a certain engine past 5 years of release, it maybe a little truth to it imo as more attention is the the EB . You would had heard similar claims at GM and Chrysler by now if its CAFE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Billions were not spent on the 5.2L FPC, and the 5.0L has been on the market for quite some time already. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the Mustang GT V8 is going to get more expensive and the F150 dealer allocations are going to skew heavily away from the 5.0L V8. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The Essex Plant investment in 2010 for Coyote was $570 million, not billions. What;s more, all of that investment has been heavily amortized by usage in F150 and Mustang. Ford has already said that mustang is a heritage vehicle and will continue for as long as buyers want it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Yes, the V8 will be marginalized in the next 5 or so years. Hey, it is no longer a mainstream engine except in pickups and certain performance cars. And in pickups, it is becoming less mainstream every year. And what does it matter? As long as the performance is there, what's the big deal? I mean look at some of the comments in the thread on the V8 pickup challenge as an example - why was the EcoBoost V6 not included, it exceeds most V8 performance- who cares about the number of cylinders or the arrangement as long as the performance is there. And go back in history, if Henry had his way, there would have been no Ford V8, the V8 was a fallback after the X8 did not pan out. Edited January 14, 2015 by lfeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 who cares about the number of cylinders or the arrangement as long as the performance is there. Lots of people are going to bitch and complain because it won't sound like a V8, but I think it will eventually be like the change from Carbs to EFI in the Mustang in the mid-1980s Another thing...just looking at the Mustang and F-150 programs holistically...In 2011, 55% of Mustang sales where V6 and I believe that in the past couple years, the Ecoboost V6 and the regular 3.7/3.5L V6 made up more then 50% of F-150 sales. Given the addition of the Ecoboost 2.3 I4 in the Mustang (better then the 3.5L) and the 2.7L V6 in the F-150, I think we might see sales go even higher of these smaller engines,with the total Mustang sales being closer to 60% Ecoboost/V6 and the F-150 even going higher then that. I don't think 30K V8 Mustangs of 5.0L and 5.2L sizes are going to have a huge impact on Fleet CAFE ratings, when that is maybe 1% of total Ford sales? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Cute how it's phrased, "EPA is the reason Ford is phasing out their V8's". Hmmm it's really, "Ford CHOOSES to phase out their V8 because they can't make it efficient enough to comply". Not sure how much tech you could add to it but more gears in the tranny, maybe cylinder de-activation might eek out a bit more. If anything, Ford is demonstrating that a EB V6 can do the same, if not more than their own V8s. And let that sink for a few years and consumers will be able to swallow it. Only one issue being jeopardized is the historical value of the Mustang and F150 having a V8 and being known for it, for various reasons. So if an EB V6 will be "IT", how much power can you eek out of it? How much bigger can you increase the engine to, 4.0L ?+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Cute how it's phrased, "EPA is the reason Ford is phasing out their V8's". Hmmm it's really, "Ford CHOOSES to phase out their V8 because they can't make it efficient enough to comply". Not sure how much tech you could add to it but more gears in the tranny, maybe cylinder de-activation might eek out a bit more. If anything, Ford is demonstrating that a EB V6 can do the same, if not more than their own V8s. And let that sink for a few years and consumers will be able to swallow it. Only one issue being jeopardized is the historical value of the Mustang and F150 having a V8 and being known for it, for various reasons. So if an EB V6 will be "IT", how much power can you eek out of it? How much bigger can you increase the engine to, 4.0L ?+ Why would you ever need more than 600 hp in a mainstream street vehicle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 And it is fair to say that CAFE compliance is the driver. Without it this wouldn't even be a discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Cute how it's phrased, "EPA is the reason Ford is phasing out their V8's". Hmmm it's really, "Ford CHOOSES to phase out their V8 because they can't make it efficient enough to comply". Not sure how much tech you could add to it but more gears in the tranny, maybe cylinder de-activation might eek out a bit more. If anything, Ford is demonstrating that a EB V6 can do the same, if not more than their own V8s. And let that sink for a few years and consumers will be able to swallow it. Only one issue being jeopardized is the historical value of the Mustang and F150 having a V8 and being known for it, for various reasons. So if an EB V6 will be "IT", how much power can you eek out of it? How much bigger can you increase the engine to, 4.0L ?+ Cute how it's phrased, "Ford CHOOSES to phase out their V8 because they can't make it efficient enough to comply" When it's really, "Ford CHOOOSES to deemphasize their V8 because not many customers want to pay for a CAFE compliant V8" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) If that's true, the whole performance division at GM is hosed. Corvette dead, Camaro dead. First thing that came to my mind - Is this a Ford exclusive problem or are GM, Dodge, Jeep, and others all on the same path? In that case, Ford clearly has jump with moving to smaller engines with the same or better power. As noted above, GM/Chevy would be in the biggest bind. Comments? Edited January 14, 2015 by Kev-Mo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 As noted above, GM/Chevy would be in the biggest bind. Comments? You're probably right, but Chryco has a problem with that old iron-block Hemi with 2 plugs per cylinder, 2 valves and no Direct Injection, the future looks less than stellar from a CAFE POV, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 First thing that came to my mind - Is this a Ford exclusive problem or are GM, Dodge, Jeep, and others all on the same path? In that case, Ford clearly has jump with moving to smaller engines with the same or better power. As noted above, GM/Chevy would be in the biggest bind. Comments? I actually had Chryco in my original edit of my post before I took it out. Didn't want to appear to be too much of a Ford fanboi , Chryco hater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 First thing that came to my mind - Is this a Ford exclusive problem or are GM, Dodge, Jeep, and others all on the same path? In that case, Ford clearly has jump with moving to smaller engines with the same or better power. As noted above, GM/Chevy would be in the biggest bind. Comments? GM is probably ok. They sell plenty of cars to offset pickup trucks for CAFE purpose. FCA is in more dicey situation because its heavy reliance on trucks and SUVs, hence why it is the only one out of the Big 3 trying to push diesel pickup trucks and SUVs. It is a quick fix to their problem. But one thing to remember... CAFE is not a hard cap. Car companies can go way under CAFE and they do it all the time... they just pay a fine. It's cost of doing business. For example, Daimler has no hope of meeting 2017 CAFE with all the gas guzzling luxury cars and SUVs they sell so they are not even going to try... they are just going to pay the fines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 GM is probably ok. They sell plenty of cars to offset pickup trucks for CAFE purpose. FCA is in more dicey situation because its heavy reliance on trucks and SUVs, hence why it is the only one out of the Big 3 trying to push diesel pickup trucks and SUVs. It is a quick fix to their problem. But one thing to remember... CAFE is not a hard cap. Car companies can go way under CAFE and they do it all the time... they just pay a fine. It's cost of doing business. For example, Daimler has no hope of meeting 2017 CAFE with all the gas guzzling luxury cars and SUVs they sell so they are not even going to try... they are just going to pay the fines. I thought the fines were going to go away in '17 or something like that, and either you met the regs or you don't sell vehicles. I could be wrong, but I thought that was pointed out on here before?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 You're probably right, but Chryco has a problem with that old iron-block Hemi with 2 plugs per cylinder, 2 valves and no Direct Injection, the future looks less than stellar from a CAFE POV, IMHO. Wasn't the next big move from Dodge/Jeep to make the Durango into a re-run of the Jeep Grand Wagoneer? Potential Customers would assume the Hemi - what else would they have to power a nearly full size loaded 4WD unit like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I thought the fines were going to go away in '17 or something like that, and either you met the regs or you don't sell vehicles. I could be wrong, but I thought that was pointed out on here before?? I don't know the timing but that's what I heard. Of course I heard it here so we could both be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Well, this would further explain why the GT is a Eco boost v-6. While I doubt the GT will ever reach sales levels to affect Ford's CAFE numbers, (hey, it would be nice) there may be some truth to using that platform to help gain acceptance of high performance V-6 engines. "If it's good enough for the GT it's good enough for the Mustang". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I don't know the timing but that's what I heard. Of course I heard it here so we could both be wrong. Both of us wrong? Pfft! It's extremely rare that one of us is wrong, let alone BOTH of us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 You can still be fined for falling out of compliance, but they made compliance much easier. It's now $5.50 * US production for each tenth of a gallon outside of compliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy Also the Germans have been given some leeway in how soon they have to meet the standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Both of us wrong? Pfft! It's extremely rare that one of us is wrong, let alone BOTH of us! What the HELL was I thinking? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 A 600 HP V6 Mustang s a window into the future, performance doesn't go away, it just changes form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I don't believe this for a second. Paul Seredynski says there's no truth to it either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 http://www.carscoops.com/2015/01/ford-official-we-will-not-drop-v8-from.html 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 GM's pushrod engines have an advantage with regards to CAFE: It's easy to integrate 'variable displacement' (cylinder cut-off) in a pushrod engine. It can be done with an OHC design, but it gets complex and expensive. After a rocky start, GM's 'Displacement On Demand' engines work pretty good these days. Nonetheless, I doubt GM will offer V-8's in anything other than Corvettes and Camaros going forward. Trucks will probably retain V-8's, particularly 3/4 ton and larger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 It's pretty darn easy to implement DoD in an OHC engine too. You just turn off the plugs and injectors on that bank. Granted the 2.7L is a brand new design, compare the power output of that motor to the 5.3L V8, and the fuel economy of the two trucks. 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.