Jump to content

The Ford Order Tracking System Is No Longer Available.  THANKS Cyberdman For Making Available All Of These Past Years.  More Here.

Trader 10

2024 Mustang To Be Revealed At Detroit Auto Show

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Only on BOF would people complain about 450 hp in a normal production model.

 

Especially when they don't realize how quickly and far along engine technology has gone. Just 15 years ago, the 2007 Mustang GT's 24v SOHC 4.6L V8 engine only had 300 horsepower and 320 lb-ft of torque. That was actually impressive back then! Now, the engine is a 5.0L with lots of high-tech features... 32v DOHC with variable timing, dual injection, etc. and etc. Then look even further back 25 years ago to 1997 - the second year of the 4.6L V8, by the way - and find that it only put out 215 horsepower and 285 lb-ft of torque for the 16v SOHC and 305 horsepower and 300 lb-ft of torque for the 32v DOHC. It's impressive with how far Ford has gone with their engine capability and technology, especially considering it's an old engine! Then there's the fact that the 'S650' Mustang actually lives on rather than canceled as many people previously feared. Some people just can't be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tbone said:

It’s looking like it’s nearly confirmed the carryover 5.0 engine will be having the carryover power.  Disappointing for the performance enthusiast, when they can’t even do a marginal bump in power like 10 or 15 Hp to make it seems like they did something. Another let down like the Gen 3 Raptor.  
 

https://fordauthority.com/2022/11/2024-ford-mustang-gt-window-sticker-shows-horsepower-rating/

That’s just the GT Mustang, the Dark Horse version with twin throttle bodies is expected to make 500 hp.

There probably will be “specials” during this product cycle, cobras, Bullitt, with power bumps to match.

 

Also, remember that CAFE and emissions requirements are inching up almost every year now and things are not like they were four or five years ago, every thing  now is about going electric…

 

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

That’s just the GT Mustang, the Dark Horse version with twin throttle bodies is expected to make 500 hp.


“But I don’t want to pay extra for a special version.”  😎
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, akirby said:


“But I don’t want to pay extra for a special version.”  😎
 

I don’t understand why there’s so much outrage in America, seems people are annoyed at every little thing.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

I don’t understand why there’s so much outrage in America, seems people are annoyed at every little thing.

Drivers never had it so good- For $30K you can get a new EcoBeast Mustang that will run high 13 second quarter miles like a 60s big block Mustang, and unlike the 60s big block it'll turn instead of plow and stop again and again with no drama. Gets mid 20s MPG too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Drivers never had it so good- For $30K you can get a new EcoBeast Mustang that will run high 13 second quarter miles like a 60s big block Mustang, and unlike the 60s big block it'll turn instead of plow and stop again and again with no drama. Gets mid 20s MPG too...

The exciting part for me is the 2024 Mustang has two jobs, 1) to fill the needs of Ford buyer and 2) to draw in Camaro buyers who are attracted to possibly their first Mustang…..how cool is that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I don’t understand why there’s so much outrage in America, seems people are annoyed at every little thing.

Don’t misconstrue disappointment for outrage.  It’s not unreasonable for people to have expectations for improvements on a new generation of a vehicle, particularly a performance model. 

 

5 hours ago, akirby said:


“But I don’t want to pay extra for a special version.”  😎
 


But it would cost more since it is a special version, so not unreasonable to see a higher cost.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tbone said:

Don’t misconstrue disappointment for outrage.  It’s not unreasonable for people to have expectations for improvements on a new generation of a vehicle, particularly a performance model. 

Power and torque dropped 10 hp and 10 lb ft for 22 model, Ford is clearly fighting against tighter emission rules. The way I see I you can either buy their expensive 500 hp Dark Horse versions or go get something like a CAI package and pick up 20-30 hp.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, people read a headline and assume it to be true.

 

Take a look at the window sticker in the Ford Authority link. It also states Sync 3 and an 8" screen. That doesn't sound like the new screens in S650. I suspect someone with Photoshop just wanted their 5 minutes of fame.

 

Also, have a watch of this video. At the reveal Ed Krenz specifically states the only different between the Dark Horse engine (the HP starts with a 5) and the GT is that the DH gets forged conrods. BOTH get the dual intakes and dual throttle body setup. He also states the GT will have "480 plus, and the reason I said plus is that one of our competitors has 485 and we don't like to be second....."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s just part of Ford’s teasing information!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2022 at 8:51 PM, GearheadGrrrl said:

Drivers never had it so good- For $30K you can get a new EcoBeast Mustang that will run high 13 second quarter miles like a 60s big block Mustang, and unlike the 60s big block it'll turn instead of plow and stop again and again with no drama. Gets mid 20s MPG too...

 

So true, particularly when compared to first big block Mustang which ran low 15s if I recall correctly.  What has changed considerably though is that back in 1967, regular Mustangs could be purchased with a base 200 cubic inch six as base engine, three 289 cubic inch engines with different power, and the 390 big block.

 

The current 2.3L EB is so powerful that there doesn’t seem to be an engine choice comparable to the early 200 I-6 for buyers mostly interested in style and economy.  I expect Ford marketing must have concluded there isn’t enough demand for an economy-minded Mustang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2022 at 8:14 PM, jpd80 said:

I don’t understand why there’s so much outrage in America, seems people are annoyed at every little thing.


You and me both.

Visited 6g lately? 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2022 at 7:14 PM, jpd80 said:

I don’t understand why there’s so much outrage in America, seems people are annoyed at every little thing.

Social media breeds outrage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2022 at 7:51 PM, GearheadGrrrl said:

Drivers never had it so good- For $30K you can get a new EcoBeast Mustang that will run high 13 second quarter miles like a 60s big block Mustang, and unlike the 60s big block it'll turn instead of plow and stop again and again with no drama. Gets mid 20s MPG too...

Don't let the old car fanboys hear that. They'll spew some bs about how they don't make 'em like they used to. Thank God for that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Don't let the old car fanboys hear that. They'll spew some bs about how they don't make 'em like they used to. Thank God for that. 

 

Couldn't disagree more with your stereotypical view of old car fanboys. Current Mustang owner and owner of several mustangs going back to 1974.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hand-filer said:

Couldn't disagree more with your stereotypical view of old car fanboys. Current Mustang owner and owner of several mustangs going back to 1974.

You must be new to the internet-just look at the comments about the Mach E and Ecoboost Mustangs over the years. Neither get much respect 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rick73 said:

So true, particularly when compared to first big block Mustang which ran low 15s if I recall correctly. 

 

I have to wonder if one of the biggest differences between the late-60's and now is the tires.  Probably not fair to compare F-70/14 Poly-glas bias ply's to today's Pilot Sports,,,,

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g15105913/ford-mustang-gt-0-60-times/

 

HRG

Edited by HotRunrGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of differences, including gross vs. net hp ratings (knock something like a third off gross for net), greater modern chassis rigidity that makes the car respond better...although all the safety innovations make them weigh more.  Throw in the tires, the brakes, the ignition and fuel systems, etc etc etc.

It all does make a great case for doing a serious restomod based on one of those "body in white" shells.  Have your '69 fastback, only brand new, with a Coyote, Brembos, rack and pinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, ZanatWork said:

It all does make a great case for doing a serious restomod based on one of those "body in white" shells.  Have your '69 fastback, only brand new, with a Coyote, Brembos, rack and pinion....


I’ve been wanting to find a SVO and put a driveline from a 2018+ EcoBoost mustang in it (preferably with the performance package tune) for a while now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

I have to wonder if one of the biggest differences between the late-60's and now is the tires.  Probably not fair to compare F-70/14 Poly-glas bias ply's to today's Pilot Sports,,,,

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g15105913/ford-mustang-gt-0-60-times/

 

HRG

 

My first car, which I purchased while in high school, was a used 1965 Mustang fastback with 225 HP 289.  In addition to tires not having much grip, weight distribution was not ideal.  Back then heads, intake, and even the transmission were cast iron, so heavier than modern engines of similar design; though not by much.

 

As pointed out by ZanatWork above, a huge difference was also Net versus Gross horsepower.  The 302 2-barrel dropped from 210 to 140 HP overnight a few model years later, so my 225 HP was probably closer to 150 HP by present ratings.

 

I also got to frequently drive a 1967 Mustang with 200 cubic inch straight six with 120 gross HP, and while it had much less power than mine, it wasn’t that noticeable in normal traffic or while cruising on the highway.  I would guess 0-60 time around 10 seconds which kept up with traffic easily, and would do 80 MPH all day on long trips.

 

I don’t know what Mustang buyers today want, but wonder if a base engine with less than EcoBoost +/- 300 HP would appeal to some.  It is hard to imagine every buyer wants or needs 5-second 0-60.  Granted, Mustang sales are a small fraction of what they once were, so maybe demand is much more focused on performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Rick73 said:


wonder if a base engine with less than EcoBoost +/- 300 HP would appeal to some.  It is hard to imagine every buyer wants or needs 5-second 0-60.  Granted, Mustang sales are a small fraction of what they once were, so maybe demand is much more focused on performance.


The RWD 2.3 is shared with Ranger and Explorer.  Doesn’t make sense to do anything smaller since it would be a bespoke engine and tranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, akirby said:


The RWD 2.3 is shared with Ranger and Explorer.  Doesn’t make sense to do anything smaller since it would be a bespoke engine and tranny.

 

Great point.  The original Mustang 200 base engine was also used in many other vehicles which helped with cost.

 

I was wondering more about a naturally-aspirated base engine rather than a smaller EcoBoost, but I suppose that was already tried with NA V6 which was later replaced by 2.3L EB if I recall correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

Great point.  The original Mustang 200 base engine was also used in many other vehicles which helped with cost.

 

I was wondering more about a naturally-aspirated base engine rather than a smaller EcoBoost, but I suppose that was already tried with NA V6 which was later replaced by 2.3L EB if I recall correctly.


I guess technically they have the 3.3L v6 from F150 and Explorer HEV but the 2.3 probably gets better mpg with more power.  They don’t have any smaller RWD powertrains ready to drop in that I’m aware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×