Mach 4 Trademark Filing Suggests Four Door Ford Mustang Incoming

[akirby]

10 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

That’s ridiculous.  Is this not a forum so that anyone can express opposing views.  How goddamn boring would this place be if everyone had to agree on everything?  We should all be thankful for diverse points of view as long as not written rudely.

 

The 4-door Mustang above has limited market potential.  It will likely not sell in large numbers, making profitability possible but limiting income.  Just because a few car guys want a 4-door Mustang doesn’t necessarily mean Ford should build it from a business perspective.  For all we know the required investment could be better used manufacturing a different sedan or different vehicle altogether with greater sales potential.  Common sense alone suggests that if it was a clear decision they would have done it a long time ago.  I stand by my point that looks alone isn’t enough, and that’s not bitching, it is disagreement.

You know who knows the ROI potential and ROI of other potential products?  Ford.  So if they’ve decided to go ahead with it there are good reasons.

 

We’ve already discussed ad nauseum the reasons why a 4 door Mustang makes sense:

 

offsets the coupe for CAFE purposes.  

Utilizes spare factory capacity.

Utilizes existing platform and powertrains and styling elements.

Furthers the Mustang sub brand,

 

It’s by far the cheapest new vehicle to create.  There is a void in the market.  It literally makes no sense to build anything else RIGHT NOW.  Things were different in the past.

 

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

That’s ridiculous.  Is this not a forum so that anyone can express opposing views.  How goddamn boring would this place be if everyone had to agree on everything?  We should all be thankful for diverse points of view as long as not written rudely.

 

Its just as ridiculous as your views on turbo engines too. If you have an opposing view, bring your backup and references to help prove your point. 

[02MustangGT]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

You know who knows the ROI potential and ROI of other potential products?  Ford

Counterpoint:  you know who doesn’t know the actual ROI potential?   Anyone on this board.  
 

You have no clue how profitable a 4 door Mustang would be and neither do I.  If you trust Ford to make the right decisions based on the track record, good luck.  It really depends on the market that many manufacturers have decided is no longer worth pursuing.  It’s all debatable and you can have an opinion, but that’s all it is.  We shall see how this plays out, hopefully Ford produces a desirable product that keeps the Mustang name alive and well positioned for years to come. IMO, that’s the ONLY reason to produce a 4 door Mustang.  

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, 02MustangGT said:

Counterpoint:  you know who doesn’t know the actual ROI potential?   Anyone on this board.  
 

You have no clue how profitable a 4 door Mustang would be and neither do I.  If you trust Ford to make the right decisions based on the track record, good luck.  It really depends on the market that many manufacturers have decided is no longer worth pursuing.  It’s all debatable and you can have an opinion, but that’s all it is.  We shall see how this plays out, hopefully Ford produces a desirable product that keeps the Mustang name alive and well positioned for years to come. IMO, that’s the ONLY reason to produce a 4 door Mustang.  

 

The Return On Investment shouldn't be an issue-the Sedan Mustang would share about 60-80% commonality with the coupe. 

 

The Mustang platform is most likely already "paid off" investment wise-its a massaged S197 with IRS added 10 years ago and a deep refresh of the platform I think roughly at the same time. The S197 has been in production for almost 20 years and the IRS for half of that. 

 

The only major unknown is the cost of designing an updated crash cell to have an additional 2 doors added to it. 

 

Even if they just sell an additional 25-50K Mustang sedans, it would be worthwhile for Ford to do..this isn't 40 years ago where you had to sell 300K products to break even on them. 

[02MustangGT]

23 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

The Return On Investment shouldn't be an issue-the Sedan Mustang would share about 60-80% commonality with the coupe. 

We can make some “educated” assumptions, but it’s all speculation as the product doesn’t exist in the market today.  I feel like initial demand will result in perhaps 30k units the first year.  In order to sustain success, I’d like to see this product usher in the hybrid era for the Mustang.  

Edited March 8 by 02MustangGT

[Rick73]

6 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Its just as ridiculous as your views on turbo engines too. If you have an opposing view, bring your backup and references to help prove your point. 

Seriously?  I’m trying my very best to be an adult here; since when does anyone have to justify their engine preferences to you, or ice-capades, or akirby or anyone whatsoever.  Don’t you guys see the irony in thinking that you’re so right that no one else has the right to prefer a different type of engine?  So what if I don’t prefer turbo engines for my needs?  Why do you even care what I like best?  Contrary to your point of view, no one feels the need to justify what they want.  If I prefer a Godzilla V8 over any EcoBoost, that’s my choice and mine alone.  If you prefer EB, that’s your choice and I haven’t said otherwise.

 

If Ford managers have the same “it’s my way or the highway” attitude, they will no doubt alienate potential buyers.

[jpd80]

10 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

The Return On Investment shouldn't be an issue-the Sedan Mustang would share about 60-80% commonality with the coupe. 

 

The Mustang platform is most likely already "paid off" investment wise-its a massaged S197 with IRS added 10 years ago and a deep refresh of the platform I think roughly at the same time. The S197 has been in production for almost 20 years and the IRS for half of that. 

 

The only major unknown is the cost of designing an updated crash cell to have an additional 2 doors added to it. 

 

Even if they just sell an additional 25-50K Mustang sedans, it would be worthwhile for Ford to do..this isn't 40 years ago where you had to sell 300K products to break even on them. 

Exactly so, Ford is basically following the formula Ford Australia used to prolong

its local production of Falcon when it developed the Territory Utility in 2005.

Falcon and Territory continued until 2016 when FOA finally pulled the plug.

 

Edited March 8 by jpd80

[akirby]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Seriously?  I’m trying my very best to be an adult here; since when does anyone have to justify their engine preferences to you, or ice-capades, or akirby or anyone whatsoever.  Don’t you guys see the irony in thinking that you’re so right that no one else has the right to prefer a different type of engine?  So what if I don’t prefer turbo engines for my needs?  Why do you even care what I like best?  Contrary to your point of view, no one feels the need to justify what they want.  If I prefer a Godzilla V8 over any EcoBoost, that’s my choice and mine alone.  If you prefer EB, that’s your choice and I haven’t said otherwise.

 

If Ford managers have the same “it’s my way or the highway” attitude, they will no doubt alienate potential buyers.

But you don’t just say you prefer something.  You say this is better than that or buyers prefer that when there is evidence to the contrary.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

But you don’t just say you prefer something.  You say this is better than that or buyers prefer that when there is evidence to the contrary.

In different thread I linked a Ford dealership’s comparison listing pros and cons of EB versus NA.  Clearly it was not my opinion though I happen to agree with most of it.  
 

https://www.chalmersford.com/blog/ecoboost-vs-naturally-aspirated-engines

 

I don’t have a dog in this fight and couldn’t care less what you guys drive.  I have repeatedly stated that I “personally” don’t need EB power nor can I justify the higher cost based on fuel savings.  To me that falls under preferences, though granted it implies NA is better for my needs, not necessarily others.

[Sherminator98]

21 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I don’t have a dog in this fight and couldn’t care less what you guys drive.  I have repeatedly stated that I “personally” don’t need EB power nor can I justify the higher cost based on fuel savings.  To me that falls under preferences, though granted it implies NA is better for my needs, not necessarily others.

 

If you really felt that way, you wouldn't be sharing your option about it when ever you can either...

Edited March 9 by Sherminator98

[kach22i]

We have been down this road before in another guise, five years ago.

 

 

Ford Mustang hybrid with V8, AWD, in 2022: Exploring the latest theory

• Jonathon Ramsey
• Apr 21, 2020

https://www.autoblog.com/features/ford-mustang-v8-hybrid-awd-powertrain-rumor

 

Going back to the weight issue. 

 

ICE

(2) electric motors in the front

12 inch longer wheelbase

Batteries and or capacitor(s)

 

Let's say the two extremes are:

 

A: 1.0L Ecoboost range extender (similar to BMW 3i REX) with large/heavy 200 mile battery pack

 

Z: 3.5L Ecoboost with small/light 20-40 mile battery pack (or just on launch discharge capacitor).

 

Which A to Z mix would best suit a 4-door Mach-4 buyer?

 

Something to keep in mind when deciding is the "A" in CdA. 

 

The Mustang based Mach-4 could have higher highway numbers than the normal SUV hybrid because of aerodynamics, a lower "Area". 

 

The longer body Mustang/Mach-4 would have a better fineness ratio and a better coefficient of drag than it's 2-door sibling, so the Cd is better than any Mustang or SUV as well.

 

What does this mean in the A-Z decision mix?

 

Conventional thinking says to extend the range of an EV, good aerodynamics are essential.

 

Convention says to get a heavy mass moving, lots of torque is needed.

 

Decisions, decisions.

 

jpd80 mentioned a good historic precedence that should be kept in mind.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Territory_(Australia)

Quote

Ford Australia senior executives had expected the Falcon wagon to be discontinued soon after the introduction of the Territory, surmising that Falcon wagon sales would substantially decline as fleet buyers migrated to the Territory. However, this did not happen because the Falcon wagon retained much of its fleet sales base and the Territory appealed mainly to large families. The production of the Falcon station wagon was terminated in September 2010. The Territory was never a serious replacement for it due to higher fuel consumption and increased weight.^[5]

 

 

So the question isn't what the Mustang buyer wants, it's what the Mach-4 buyer will be looking for.

 

And of course there is the physics, always the physics. 

 

 

 

 

 

[bzcat]

If we are going to speculate, I would guess Mach 4 will not be a full hybrid. S650 was not engineered for it and Ford is probably not interested in spending the kind of money required to make it so.

 

But Ford can easily adopt the 48V mild hybrid that may squeeze out an extra or two MPG. 

 

V8 is kind of existential for Mustang so I suspect it will continue to be part of the picture for the coupe. But for Mach 4, it wouldn't surprise me if Ford decides to go with Ecoboost V6 which should be easier to meet CAFE target than the V8. And of course it goes without saying, the bulk of the sales will be 2.3 Ecoboost. 

[rmc523]

On 3/7/2025 at 3:01 PM, Rick73 said:

That’s ridiculous.  Is this not a forum so that anyone can express opposing views.  How goddamn boring would this place be if everyone had to agree on everything?  We should all be thankful for diverse points of view as long as not written rudely.

 

The 4-door Mustang above has limited market potential.  It will likely not sell in large numbers, making profitability possible but limiting income.  Just because a few car guys want a 4-door Mustang doesn’t necessarily mean Ford should build it from a business perspective.  For all we know the required investment could be better used manufacturing a different sedan or different vehicle altogether with greater sales potential.  Common sense alone suggests that if it was a clear decision they would have done it a long time ago.  I stand by my point that looks alone isn’t enough, and that’s not bitching, it is disagreement.

 

Market conditions and product portfolio is always changing, though.  10 years ago a new Fusion was a surefire bet for investment.  Now, not so much.

If they can zig where everyone is zagging, they can justify higher MSRPs on this product vs. any other sedan they'd come up with, and it checks all of Farley's product boxes (icon nameplate, non-commodity product, etc) while giving more product to a long underutilized factory....

 

On 3/9/2025 at 9:38 AM, kach22i said:

We have been down this road before in another guise, five years ago.

 

 

Ford Mustang hybrid with V8, AWD, in 2022: Exploring the latest theory

• Jonathon Ramsey
• Apr 21, 2020

https://www.autoblog.com/features/ford-mustang-v8-hybrid-awd-powertrain-rumor

 

Going back to the weight issue. 

 

ICE

(2) electric motors in the front

12 inch longer wheelbase

Batteries and or capacitor(s)

 

Let's say the two extremes are:

 

A: 1.0L Ecoboost range extender (similar to BMW 3i REX) with large/heavy 200 mile battery pack

 

Z: 3.5L Ecoboost with small/light 20-40 mile battery pack (or just on launch discharge capacitor).

 

Which A to Z mix would best suit a 4-door Mach-4 buyer?

 

Something to keep in mind when deciding is the "A" in CdA. 

 

The Mustang based Mach-4 could have higher highway numbers than the normal SUV hybrid because of aerodynamics, a lower "Area". 

 

The longer body Mustang/Mach-4 would have a better fineness ratio and a better coefficient of drag than it's 2-door sibling, so the Cd is better than any Mustang or SUV as well.

 

What does this mean in the A-Z decision mix?

 

Conventional thinking says to extend the range of an EV, good aerodynamics are essential.

 

Convention says to get a heavy mass moving, lots of torque is needed.

 

Decisions, decisions.

 

jpd80 mentioned a good historic precedence that should be kept in mind.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Territory_(Australia)

 

 

So the question isn't what the Mustang buyer wants, it's what the Mach-4 buyer will be looking for.

 

And of course there is the physics, always the physics. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That report I think was based on the 4-door concept they showed dealers, so it wasn't a complete out of nowhere.  Also couple with Farley's comments, and name trademarking, and it lends itself to be even more likely than ever before.....but who knows with how Ford changes plans like underwear.

 

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

If we are going to speculate, I would guess Mach 4 will not be a full hybrid. S650 was not engineered for it and Ford is probably not interested in spending the kind of money required to make it so.

 

But Ford can easily adopt the 48V mild hybrid that may squeeze out an extra or two MPG. 

 

V8 is kind of existential for Mustang so I suspect it will continue to be part of the picture for the coupe. But for Mach 4, it wouldn't surprise me if Ford decides to go with Ecoboost V6 which should be easier to meet CAFE target than the V8. And of course it goes without saying, the bulk of the sales will be 2.3 Ecoboost. 

 

If it were a new product, I'd agree with you, but the engineering is already there for the V8.....I feel it would negatively impact sales NOT to have the V8.

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, bzcat said:

If we are going to speculate, I would guess Mach 4 will not be a full hybrid. S650 was not engineered for it and Ford is probably not interested in spending the kind of money required to make it so.

Interesting story re S650 development.

S650 was evolved from S550 using CD6 elements to permit hybrid, the floorpan was changed to accomodate batteries. The PHEV 2.3 EB was supposed to debut in S650 Mustang  shortly after launch but was delayed (indefinitely?) in preference to PHEV 2.3 Ranger for European market. 

 

 

2 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

But Ford can easily adopt the 48V mild hybrid that may squeeze out an extra or two MPG. 

 

V8 is kind of existential for Mustang so I suspect it will continue to be part of the picture for the coupe. But for Mach 4, it wouldn't surprise me if Ford decides to go with Ecoboost V6 which should be easier to meet CAFE target than the V8. And of course it goes without saying, the bulk of the sales will be 2.3 Ecoboost. 

Yes, both of those options make perfect sense

Edited March 10 by jpd80

[rmc523]

12 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Interesting story re S650 development.

S650 was evolved from S550 using CD6 elements to permit hybrid, the floorpan was changed to accomodate batteries. The PHEV 2.3 EB was supposed to debut in S650 Mustang  shortly after launch but was delayed (indefinitely?) in preference to PHEV 2.3 Ranger for European market. 

 

 

Yes, both of those options make perfect sense

 

The question is - was it not engineered for it, or did they do the work and then decide not to move forward with it?

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

If it were a new product, I'd agree with you, but the engineering is already there for the V8.....I feel it would negatively impact sales NOT to have the V8.

So is the engineering for the 3.0L ecoboost (Explorer and  Bronco).

 

I think the 5.0 would be ok for a Mustang 4 door but if they do a Lincoln version it needs the ecoboost.

Edited March 10 by akirby

[The Handler]

A hypothetical Lincoln variant doesn't necessarily have to have a unique body as the Mustang's surface language can pass a Lincoln. A unique front and rear clip would do the job just fine.

 

The Mustang's proportions are absolutely perfect for a Mark coupe. Interestingly, the proportions of the original Mustang were inspired by the Continental Mark II.

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

The question is - was it not engineered for it, or did they do the work and then decide not to move forward with it?

Yes, a reliable source says that the project was completed but the PHEV model

was delayed and quietly dropped from discussion.

 

[rmc523]

16 hours ago, akirby said:

So is the engineering for the 3.0L ecoboost (Explorer and  Bronco).

 

I think the 5.0 would be ok for a Mustang 4 door but if they do a Lincoln version it needs the ecoboost.

 

I meant in the sense of they already offer the 5.0 in Mustang, so there's near zero work to offer it on the sedan (longer driveshaft and exhaust would be most of the work I can think of).  There are no products where the 5.0 and 3.0 overlap that I know of, so unless the 3.0 can just be dropped in and everything will fit perfectly, they'll have to do work to make sure everything fits in Mustang's engine bay.

I'd actually wonder if it'd be worth going a different way, and offering the 5.0 and 3.0 PHEV in a Lincoln version in lieu of the 2.3?

 

8 hours ago, The Handler said:

A hypothetical Lincoln variant doesn't necessarily have to have a unique body as the Mustang's surface language can pass a Lincoln. A unique front and rear clip would do the job just fine.

 

The Mustang's proportions are absolutely perfect for a Mark coupe. Interestingly, the proportions of the original Mustang were inspired by the Continental Mark II.

 

Highly disagree.  Lincoln has done a lot of work to become unique style wise from Ford.  Copy pasting would undo all of that work done over the last 10 years.

 

The roofline could stay the same perhaps, but they'd need unique sheetmetal all around.

 

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Yes, a reliable source says that the project was completed but the PHEV model

was delayed and quietly dropped from discussion.

 

 

"project completed" meaning what?

1) they did the work to accept PHEV tech, but just put the PHEV on the shelf but could dust it off and plug and play it in at any moment, 

OR

2) S650 was completed, but they quit early on and PHEV would require a big rework still?

 

 

 

 

----

 

On a different note, I'd advocate for this mustang sedan to be a hatch with the rear glass lifting with the trunk lid....though I realize it'd require more engineering, but would make it far more useful, IMO.

[jpd80]

10 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

I meant in the sense of they already offer the 5.0 in Mustang, so there's near zero work to offer it on the sedan (longer driveshaft and exhaust would be most of the work I can think of).  There are no products where the 5.0 and 3.0 overlap that I know of, so unless the 3.0 can just be dropped in and everything will fit perfectly, they'll have to do work to make sure everything fits in Mustang's engine bay.

I'd actually wonder if it'd be worth going a different way, and offering the 5.0 and 3.0 PHEV in a Lincoln version in lieu of the 2.3?

 

 

Highly disagree.  Lincoln has done a lot of work to become unique style wise from Ford.  Copy pasting would undo all of that work done over the last 10 years.

 

The roofline could stay the same perhaps, but they'd need unique sheetmetal all around.

 

 

"project completed" meaning what?

1) they did the work to accept PHEV tech, but just put the PHEV on the shelf but could dust it off and plug and play it in at any moment, 

OR

2) S650 was completed, but they quit early on and PHEV would require a big rework still?

 

Haven’t heard if road reliability testing was done as that would be part of the final sign off and handover.

Could be that Ford wanted to wait until maybe four door could use the PHEV as well, just speculation here but maybe the PHEV makes more sense in the four door?

 

10 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

 

 

----

 

On a different note, I'd advocate for this mustang sedan to be a hatch with the rear glass lifting with the trunk lid....though I realize it'd require more engineering, but would make it far more useful, IMO.

Good point.

Edited March 11 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Just on the PHEV 2.3 EB in the Ranger, it looks like Ford has absolutely knobbled the EB’s power and torque, probably to comply with Europe’s tight CO2 emission limits.

 

Total System Power

207 Kw @ 4,600.  697nm @2,700

277 hp @ 4,600.    516 lbft @ 2,700

 

Electric Motor

75 Kw / 101 hp.  286 nm / 211 lb ft

 

2.3 EB engine

138 Kw / 185 hp @ 4,600. 411 nm / 304 lb ft @ 2,700

[rmc523]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Haven’t heard if road reliability testing was done as that would be part of the final sign off and handover.

Could be that Ford wanted to wait until maybe four door could use the PHEV as well, just speculation here but maybe the PHEV makes more sense in the four door?

 

Good point.

 

though it'd add additional weight, it'd have more room to fit PHEV components with the longer vehicle.

[akirby]

5 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

though it'd add additional weight, it'd have more room to fit PHEV components with the longer vehicle.

Not sure PHEVs are viable right now.  There are multiple 2024 escape PHEVs available within 20 miles of me with $9k rebates.  

[rmc523]

13 minutes ago, akirby said:

Not sure PHEVs are viable right now.  There are multiple 2024 escape PHEVs available within 20 miles of me with $9k rebates.  

 

I only said PHEV because that's what was mentioned - I should've said regular hybrid (which is what I see as more viable).

[Sherminator98]

14 minutes ago, akirby said:

Not sure PHEVs are viable right now.  There are multiple 2024 escape PHEVs available within 20 miles of me with $9k rebates.  

Wouldn’t that partly be happening because of the 2025MY hitting the lots?