A 60-degree V8 isn’t ideal, though Ford had one already.  That configuration is almost as bad as the more common 90-degree V6 made by removing 2-cylinders from a V8, or a 90-degree V10 by adding 2 cylinders also to a V8.  Ford did those too, and more recently.  Reminds me of penny wise but pound foolish lack of judgment.   If you are referring to a new smaller 2-valve pushrod V8, I think 4.0L or smaller would easily fit in a Ranger, Explorer, Transit, etc.  However, any naturally aspirated 4-cycle engine in the 3-liter size range would lack enough torque for heavier modern vehicles.  At 4~4.5 liters it starts to sound better if emissions can be managed.  Realistically, a naturally-aspirated DOHC inline six makes more sense to me, mainly because 3.4L would be affordable.  Just add 2 cylinders to Mustang and Explorer modular I-4 as previously discussed and cost should remain low.  Your 275 HP would be easy from NA 3.4L I-6.

The answer to closing the price gap between ICE and BEVs would seem to be making ICE more expensive, the complete opposite to what were told about lowered EV costs…   Sadly, the deck is loaded against buyers

I'm shopping for EW right now; huge variations in price for the same Ford plan.

Did you get it sorted out?

Between Chevy and RAM pickup owners, seems there is much loyalty for pushrod V8s.  Maybe Ford should downsize an aluminum Godzilla down to 5.7 ~ 6.4 liters.  Not serious.  I digress.  Better in a Mustang. 😀

I’m imagining an Ecoboost Mustang with Dark Horse parts and power upgrades but built on the assembly line and just using the tuner’s name..   If the above is true, it probably makes this performance version of the Ecoboost Mustang fairly easy for Ford to do.

If it had been paid off, I'd have kept my GT.  I loved it, it just wasn't practical (it was fine as a daily just going back and forth to work, but when you did need to get larger items, it wasn't good lol), and I wasn't going to have 2 car payments lol.

Cylinder count is still a thing. The 2.3L EcoBoost I-Four in my Ranger has more horsepower per liter than any other vehicle I've ever owned, but it ain't got enough bores. I think the way to go until we Boomers fully age out of the new vehicle market is to develop a simple pushrod V8, maybe with a 60º Vee for Rangers, Explorer and the Bronco & BSport. I would think/hope that any EPA penalty could be absorbed if the design was simple enough. Gasoline Direct Injection, variable valve timing and higher compression make up much of the performance of today's ICE engines, super-and turbocharging make up the rest. Gimmie Farley's bonus and I'll come up with a 3L± normally aspirated V8 w/ 2valves per cylinder GDI, VVT, 275+ horsepower. Fart can this.

I felt the same walking the pits at IMSA Sports Car Weekend at Road America last year. I'm anxious to see the Mustang Challenge, new for 2025. It would be good to see Ford and others get more involved in stage rally racing in North America, Subaru is the big dog (pun intended) there. The first rally I went was the Jack Pines rally in northern Minnesota; SAAB 96s, Volvo B18s VW Golfs and even a Dodge Omni. I cheered that one on as I has an "82 at the time