Print 55 comment(s) - last by seenmuch.. on Jan 13 at 12:46 AM

Mustang could get diesel power in the future

Ford unveiled the new 2015 Mustang earlier this month and with the unveiling of the new car also came a new engine. The 2015 Mustang will get the fuel-efficient EcoBoost 4-cylinder engine that will generate roughly 305 hp and around 305 lb-ft of torque. It will be the first 4-cylinder turbo Mustang since the SVO version in the Fox body generation of the Pony car.
Ford has yet to offer official mileage estimates for the EcoBoost engine in the 2015 Mustang, but it is expected to be one of the most fuel efficient engines in its class.

However, EcoBoost isn't the only green tech that Ford is considering for the Mustang. Ford has said that it is considering a future for the Mustang that could see diesel power, hybrid, or fully-electric versions of the car. Many high-end supercars – like the Ferrari LaFerrari, McLaren P1, and Porsche 918 Spyder -- are utilizing hybrid systems for fuel efficiency and improved performance.
The new Lexus RC coupe will also be available in a hybrid version.

Traditionally, the Mustang wasn’t a car purchased for its fuel efficiency. The 2015 Mustang is designed from the ground up to be a world car and options such as diesel engine would make the care more appealing
Ford Global powertrain boss Bob Fascetti said, "We’re not looking at diesel at the moment, but given where we need to go with fuel consumption we are looking at all our options, and diesel is one of those options, along with hybrids and electric."

The future for the Mustang will likely see new transmissions as well. Ford and GM are currently working on a joint project to develop new nine and ten-speed automatic transmissions to improve fuel economy. 

Source: Go Auto

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By ipay on 12/9/2013 10:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
Traditionally, the Mustang wasn't a car purchased for its fuel efficiency.
Traditionally, it wasn't a car purchased in a V6 variant for daughters who then thought they had a fast car, either.

RE: Traditionally
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2013 10:47:27 AM , Rating: 3
Uhh really?

The 1964 Mustang has a V6 engine. 6 and even 4 cylinder engines have been used throughout the cars history.

And that's fine. What is NOT fine is forcing standards on everyone so high, high displacement engines can no longer be offered.

RE: Traditionally
By ipay on 12/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Traditionally
By Argon18 on 12/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Traditionally
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2013 12:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hatchbacks in Europe have been getting 50 MPG as standard for decades now

No they haven't. The European testing model is a joke compared to US standards, and doesn't reflect real world use. And your gallon isn't the same size, it's larger.

Ford needs to wake up and bring those here to the US.

They can't! For the above reasons, and our higher emissions standards.

You seriously don't think would if they could?

RE: Traditionally
By ipay on 12/9/2013 12:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from that, there are hatches that work in Europe just fine and get great mileage but simply would not work here.

And sometimes they just don't want to bring hatches here because they don't think they will sell well enough or perhaps monopolize other models. Take the BMW 5-door 1-series... Same engines as the sedan, same basic body structure, etc. There are no US regulations that restrict it from easily being offered here.

RE: Traditionally
By GulWestfale on 12/9/2013 5:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
i'm sure that is 50 UK MPG, not US MPG.

RE: Traditionally
By Samus on 12/9/2013 1:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
European fuel grades start at 91 octane and the engine is tuned for such. That improves fuel economy about 10% alone.

When vehicles are imported, even turbo vw's, they are so heavily detuned to protect the manufacturer from a warranty claim in case somebody runs 87 in a vehicle that demands 89+

RE: Traditionally
By GreenEnvt on 12/10/2013 1:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
European (well just about everywhere outside North America) use a different method of measuring Octane.

NA uses (RON+MON) / 2, so the average of the two numbers. Everyone else uses just RON, which is a higher number. So the NA "regular" is about the same as everyone elses "regular", even though the number displayed looks lower in NA.

Higher Octane levels would permit you to run higher compression and get some more efficiency, but some of that is negated by then having to build a stronger block/head to take the increased pressure, more monitoring equipment to make sure you aren't getting premature detonation, etc..

RE: Traditionally
By GotDiesel on 12/9/2013 1:36:23 PM , Rating: 2

Hate to burst your bubble, but they do, I have lived there and driven/owned 55 mpg diesel cars.. if you look at the EPA test, you will see it is not real world either.. I own a jetta diesel that "according to the EPA" returns 34 mpg combined.. which is why I get 50 mpg "real world" .. also
the US emmisions standards are not "higher".. they are "different".. engineered so by paid off politicians to protect the US market from ROW competition.. as a result we are all suffering the consequences with stifled competition.. something US makers don't like..

RE: Traditionally
By Spuke on 12/9/2013 2:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
the US emmisions standards are not "higher".. they are "different"
No, US emissions standards ARE higher although there are some upcoming EU emissions standards that will close the gap.

I own a jetta diesel that "according to the EPA" returns 34 mpg combined.. which is why I get 50 mpg "real world"
And I get 33 mpg from my 19/28 rated car. With the right driving style, anyone can better rated mpg but our lone TWO examples do not equal EPA/EU scientific testing methodologies.

RE: Traditionally
By teldar on 12/10/2013 9:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
Are you going to talk Diesel or Gasoline? There is a significant difference between the fuels.

The U.S. does not have many diesel engines available. People here still seem to believe they are noisy and messy and most people will not buy them. Or they are concerned about the different maintenance on them vs gasoline and that scares them off as well.

RE: Traditionally
By Spuke on 12/9/2013 12:33:04 PM , Rating: 3
Right now today in Europe you can buy a Ford Focus turbodiesel that gets 67 MPG. Sixty-Seven.
You have to be new here otherwise you're an idiot. I'm hoping you're just new. US mpg does not equal EU mpg. Why?

1. Gallons are different
2. Testing is different

Also, it's generally accepted that that EU testing methods are optimistic at best.

RE: Traditionally
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2013 4:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Here is an example of how lax EU testing is for mileage.

RE: Traditionally
By Spuke on 12/9/2013 4:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
There it is. What a total scam! AND they know about it! If that happened over here, automakers would have their heads on pikes.

RE: Traditionally
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2013 4:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
It would be criminal here, yes. Based on these ridiculous outright cheats, the EU consumer has NO idea what the actual mileage is going to be when they go to purchase a vehicle.

I can't believe they are allowed to change the final drive ratio and disconnect the alternator for mileage tests! Just..lmao. I can't believe they can do anything on that list actually.

RE: Traditionally
By michael67 on 12/9/2013 9:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree, they should fix this behavior, but if all do it, it still gives you a clear comparison between the cars efficient.

RE: Traditionally
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2013 10:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hey I don't care how the EU does things.

I DO care when Europeans come over here and claim they have "60mpg" petrol cars.

RE: Traditionally
By Spuke on 12/10/2013 12:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
Quite frankly Rec I'm stunned at that link. That would be a massive scandal here. Probably be some people standing in front of Congress explaining themselves.

RE: Traditionally
By Strunf on 12/10/2013 8:00:19 AM , Rating: 2
Hell some politicians would be hanged cause of it... be real your Energy Star label is abused using dirty tricks too and I don't see anyone standing in front of the Congress.

BTW in the US 85% of the new car models aren't even tested by the EPA, their stats are given by the automaker without being checked.

RE: Traditionally
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2013 8:39:43 AM , Rating: 2
Except Energy Star loopholes were closed years ago. And they were never this bad in the first place.

All I hear from Europeans is how their Government is flawless, free of corruption, and their politicians pure as driven snow.

Yet its common knowledge automakers can outright cheat these tests, and no one is doing a thing about it. Hmmm that wouldn't be because of lobbying efforts by the manufacturers would it? That only happens in America!

As to your last point, Ford just got its ass handed to it over mileage claims on one model. And we're only talking like 3-4 mpg. So no, our automakers can't get away with fudging the numbers.

RE: Traditionally
By Strunf on 12/10/2013 11:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
Except the Energy Star Loopholes weren't closed years ago... EPA does not test all the products and instead relies on the data supplied by the manufacturer, they don't even give much thought to it (much like the patent office).

Funny cause as far as I know most Europeans do not trust their government, I guess you don't know many Europeans.

3-4mpg could be 10% depending on your mpg, Ford didn't get its ass handed it merely gave the buyers some pocket money to compensate the extra fuel they will use, Ford didn't even do anything illegal, as the EPA does not force the automaker to test every model, an automaker can test a single model and then rate every other model with the same rating provided they have the same engine, power train and weight class.

Be it in Europe or the US the moment you trust automakers to do their own tests they will always try to find a way to "cheat" on them.

RE: Traditionally
By seenmuch on 1/13/2014 12:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
Calling their EU consumption testing program worthless is a little like the pot calling the kettle black.....

This is really funny with everyone in the auto industry knowing that the current epa consumption test is even more useless. The current EPA consumption test is especially useless on auto diesels & small displacement gasoline and automatic transmissions equipped cars/autos...

On the current EPA test on light duty diesels rating data, there is a admitted error in test procedure papers from the EPA a error of 20-29+% low below real world on diesel powered autos.

The current city rating on the Passat diesel are as much as 30-40 % low on manual trans equipped models, 20-30% low on autobox equipped models. And the mixed numbers are 20-25% low below real world. And on the highway rating, the manual trans model is 25-30%low. With the highway autobox numbers being 15-25% low. The EU rating of 35-36 city/40-45 mixed/48-54 highway more matching the real world( automatic(DSG on right)/6spd man on left, numbers converted from L/100km EU ratings).

This is just one example of how far off the current EPA rating system is compared to real world and other rating systems around the world. The US system is also a sort of honor system that this article fails to point out. Two automakers got into trouble last year for overestimating rating numbers, in their honor based system....

The EPA also claims in their flawed rating system that there is no difference in consumption numbers between a manual trans and an automatic equipped models. The real world data shows there is a 10-15% minimum low error in the ratings on manual trans equipped models real world.

And that error in the EPA rating on manual trans models with diesel and small displacement gasoline powered units is even more pronounced. Current rating numbers by the EPA are showing lower than real world by as much 25-30% in manual trans models with diesel & small displacement gasoline power.

There is a similar false claim in the current EAP rating system of manual trans gasoline powered autos getting similar or less than automatic trans offerings with similar power.

The real world data shows that gasoline powered autos with automatic transmissions are over estimated by at least 15-20% above real world in most conditions, higher in more city driving loops....

Then even though they lowered the expectations of hybrids the current rating still overestimates consumptions numbers by 20% above what will ever be seen in the real world...

All this while the much maligned in the above quoted article EU at least returns numbers that in the real world return come close to the real world. Closer than the EPA rating has ever returned!!!

One should look at our own rating system before we start to throw rocks at someone elses system.....

RE: Traditionally
By bill.rookard on 12/9/2013 1:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
Just a quick note: the early Mustangs never used a V6 engine, they used an I6 ranging from 2.8L to 4.3L. Later Mustangs starting in 1974 saw the introduction of the 2.8L Cologne V6 engine.

RE: Traditionally
By JediJeb on 12/9/2013 3:56:49 PM , Rating: 3
Also there were no 4cylinder engines before that time. The 64 1/2 model used the 240 and 260 V8 as options versus the standard I6. 65 and 66 offered the 289 High Performance upgrade with I6 standard. 67 and 68 saw the change from the 289 to the 302 with the I6 still standard. 67 and 68 also saw the introduction of larger engines like the 370, 427, and 428 since the body size was increased those years to hold them. Body size kept increasing up until 74 when they were downsized due to the oil embargo fuel prices and stiffer emission standards and they became the Mustang II. Those years were not so good because the few that had the 302V8 were so weak that you could actually warp the body with the power even that engine produced.

I better stop or I will be sounding like a Wiki article lol.

RE: Traditionally
By JediJeb on 12/9/2013 3:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
Edit: Oops 390 not 370 V8.

RE: Traditionally
By SAN-Man on 12/9/2013 8:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
The original I6 engines were the 170 and 200.

The original V8 engines were the 260 and 289.

Ford did not designate those engines in liters. The engineering standard in the United States at the time, and what the Federal government required, was cubic inch displacement.

Do not try to rewrite history.

RE: Traditionally
By SAN-Man on 12/9/2013 8:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
In case you're curious, the US Federal Government converted engines sizes to metric in 1983.

RE: Traditionally
By Solandri on 12/10/2013 5:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
The U.S. auto industry uses metric. They standardized on metric once the mergers between international automakers began, and they realized how stupid it was to design/build cars using two different measurement systems.

RE: Traditionally
By SAN-Man on 12/10/2013 3:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Not in 1964 or did you miss the point?

RE: Traditionally
By MichaelR on 12/10/2013 12:12:22 AM , Rating: 2
The 1964 Mustang has a V6 engine

You could get a V6 in the 1974 Mustang, but before that year all of the 6 cylinder engines were inline.

RE: Traditionally
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2013 9:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
Originally the car was designed for female secretaries.

In more recent years(late-80s, 90s, early to mid 2000s), the car is largely bought by parents giving their 16 year old daughter a "sports car" with the V6.

That's changed as gas has gotten more expensive and tastes changed.

Diggin the new Stang!
By Spuke on 12/9/2013 10:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
This car is making me reconsider buying only used. Granted, I need to see if this really ends up being quicker than the Boss 302 before I make my decision but this will get serious consideration. How about a hybrid V8 a la Porsche 918? Probably won't happen but that would be pretty cool (and expensive no doubt).

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Lord 666 on 12/9/2013 10:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
Would you bite if the diesel version is real-world quicker than the Boss 302?

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By daboom06 on 12/9/2013 11:14:49 AM , Rating: 2
yea. a diesel feels quicker because of low-end torque. going 45-80 might be less mind blowing, but i start from a stop more often than merging onto freeways.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Spuke on 12/9/2013 12:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
Would you bite if the diesel version is real-world quicker than the Boss 302?
No I wouldn't (cause it wouldn't be). For a Mustang, it's either V8 gas or get a different car as far as I'm concerned. A stated before, I would accept a V8 hybrid. The 2.3L turbo doesn't bother me either but I wouldn't buy it unless it was a track God.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Lord 666 on 12/9/2013 1:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I think manufacturers are missing solid opportunities with performance oriented diesels while still improving fuel economy.

The pending Mazda 6 with the HO diesel will leave the current crop of VW TDIs in the dust along with other sedan gassers. Have to admit I am looking forward to the 2015/2016 diesel Wrangler, especially since it is expected to outperform the gasser.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Spuke on 12/9/2013 2:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
What's your definition of outperform?

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Flunk on 12/9/2013 2:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
Better 0-60 Time!

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Spuke on 12/9/2013 3:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
Better 0-60 Time!
Well, I was asking Lord because he brought it up. I'll say this, unless the diesel Mustang has the same 400 hp as the gas car AND weighs the same or less, it WILL be slower no matter how much torque it has. Compare the VW Jetta TDI's to the turbo gas car. The turbo gas car is quicker because it has more power (and it's probably lighter too) even though the TDI has more torque. Big torque/low hp is typically indicative of a narrower powerband/less area under the curve. Less area under the curve equals a slower car even if all else is equal.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Flunk on 12/9/2013 4:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
The diesel will not have the same horspower as the V8, it will match the V6 if you're lucky. They'll probably use a 2.0L or 2.2L. I don't think they're doing for performance, but to offer better fuel economy, particularly in Europe.

P.S. My response was more of a joke than anything. But I am serious that 0-60 is a much more important metric than horsepower or torque.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Spuke on 12/10/2013 12:25:32 AM , Rating: 2
The diesel will not have the same horspower as the V8, it will match the V6 if you're lucky.
I'm thinking this also. I usually use the 1/4 mile for acceleration because 0-60 can be misleading somewhat. AWD cars can have stunning 0-60's but be slower in the 1/4 than a higher hp car with the same 0-60.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Lord 666 on 12/9/2013 3:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
With respect to the Jeep, better low-end torque and off-road capability in a potentially smaller/lighter package the size of a 4 cylinder versus a 6. Throw in better fuel economy and its a win-win for everyone. The only open question is how much of a premium will it cost, but assuming enhanced durability and resale value, the difference is estimated to be a wash.

I've shared my opinion, even before owning a 2013 Passat TDI, that the VW 2.0 TDI is slightly underpowered. The Mazda 6 will quickly prove that to be the case. Possibly why the 2014 Passat has a "Sport" model earmarked... would assume tighter suspension and more power until the new motor is imported.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Spuke on 12/9/2013 3:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the reply. It seems we agree.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Jeffk464 on 12/9/2013 3:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
Trucks in general are perfect for diesels, I'm guessing the new mid sized 4cyl turbo diesel chevy pickups are going to be real winners.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By Spuke on 12/10/2013 12:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
Trucks in general are perfect for diesels, I'm guessing the new mid sized 4cyl turbo diesel chevy pickups are going to be real winners.
I'd buy one if I could get 8 bales of hay in the bed AND if the wheelbase was long enough where I wouldn't need weight distribution bars for my horse trailer (don't need them now).

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By JediJeb on 12/9/2013 4:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
I remember the 85-86 2.3L SVO, that was an awesome car for its time. Two people I knew had them in high school, and to be honest they would keep up with any V8 from that era(though that isn't saying much).

It was at that time compared to the Shelby GT350 which used the 289HiPo engine, and the article stated that they were close competitors, but mostly on handling, though power was not so far away either.

RE: Diggin the new Stang!
By inperfectdarkness on 12/10/2013 3:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing that would make me consider buying a mustang new is if Ford finally pulled the trigger--pissed off the die-hards--and offered a 3.7L ecoboost V6 with 400+hp stock. The purists insist that the GT be a V8 and more powerful, so that will never happen. I still can dream though. I could probably massage a 3.7L turbo to kick out 500hp on pure 93 octane...and that would be just awesome.

focus ford focus!
By Argon18 on 12/9/2013 12:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
While I love small torquey diesel engines, I don't think its a good fit for the Mustang. That's not what your traditional Mustang buyer is looking for.

Ford makes some great 4-cyl diesels that have big V6 torque, with Prius-beating fuel economy. They only offer them in Europe however.

Listen up Ford, here's your winning lotto numbers: Keep the gasoline V8 in the Mustang, and instead offer a 4-cyl turbodiesel in the Focus and Escape, and offer a V6 turbodiesel in the Edge, Explorer, and Fusion. You already sell these engines in Europe, so no new engineering effort is required. Do it!

RE: focus ford focus!
By Jeffk464 on 12/9/2013 12:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
They need to do all the stuff that was done on the vette's new engine to increase mileage on the V8 mustang.

RE: focus ford focus!
By Flunk on 12/9/2013 1:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
They're not getting rid of the big V6 and V8s so they already have that segment covered.

They're trying to appeal to people like me who are interested in a car with good performance and reasonable fuel economy. I'm looking for something sporty and halfway practical (Mustang works there, the trunk is a reasonable size).

There is definitely a (younger) market of buyers who don't care if an engine is a V8, V6 or tiny 4-cylinder with a huge turbo. If it puts out 300+ HP and Torque then I really don't care. Heck, every car I've ever owned has been a 4-cylinder so I'm already used to the sound they make.

You are right about them needing to bring in more diesel crossovers, I think they're worried that the cost will scare the traditionally cost-shy American consumer away.

Anyway, love the look of the new 'Stang. This could really be the thing to steal people back from Hyundai's Genesis coupe (their biggest low-end competitor).

Better milage
By Fujikoma on 12/9/2013 5:49:26 PM , Rating: 1
Given that my 6 cylinder '93 Corsica got 6mpg better than my '07 6 cylinder Mustang, I'd say that Ford needs to axe some weight off of the car. I'd like to see better suspension, fibre-glass body panels and removal of the dead weight called a 'back seat'. Even my '80 931 got about 10 mpg more than my Mustang and handled far better. 27 years and Ford still can't beat a low end Porsche I picked up for $3k.

RE: Better milage
By Myrandex on 12/10/2013 4:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that it is an 07. 2011+ had use economy increases. My wife's 2011 V6 gets more power than the previous years V8, and higher economy than the previous years V6. That's a win / win to me. She traded in a Chevy Malibu and has a much sportier drive and saves on gas while at it.


2014 Ford Fusion Sport Coupe
By BillyBatson on 12/10/2013 6:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have never been a mustard fan but this model finally looks attractive, probably because it is pretty much a 2 door version of the new Fusion with a redesigned trunk and tail lights. If they made a sport coupe version of the Fusion this is pretty much what it would be.

By jackpro on 12/10/2013 8:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
338 Total System Horsepower [*]
29/34/31 mpg [*]
curb weight 4,190 lb (1,865 kg)
0-60 mph 5.6 seconds [*]
Certified Super Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV II)

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki