backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by deadrats.. on Mar 11 at 10:26 PM

No V8 for European Mustangs?

Any Mustang enthusiast is likely to have both fond and not so fond memories of previous generation Mustangs when a four-cylinder engine option was available. That anemic four-cylinder that hid under the hood of so many Fox body Mustangs over the years was enough to make enthusiasts cry.
 
However, Ford has made no apologies for moving the “global” 2015 Mustang to a new platform that will offer more efficient engines across the board -- the all-new Mustang will also ditch the live rear axle in favor of an independent rear suspension. We know that the muscular 5.0-liter V8 engine will soldier on in the United States. In addition, rumors continue to swirl that there will be an EcoBoost V-6 engine option available.


2013 Mustang GT

Word has now surfaced that while Europeans will be able to purchase the 2015 Ford Mustang with a turbocharged 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine. While Edmunds doesn't specify this fact, on a recent episode of the hit UK television show Top Gear the hosts said that only the four-cylinder engine would be available for European buyers.

Edmunds reports that the four-cylinder that will be under the hood of the Mustang in Europe will be based on the 2.0-liter engine featured in the 2013 Focus ST. In the Focus ST, the turbocharged four-cylinder produced 252 hp. In the Mustang, the 2.3-liter engine will produce around 300 hp according to company insiders.

Ford has remained quiet on pricing for the Mustang in Europe and the vehicle is expected to be a low-volume specialty car within Europe.

Source: Edmunds



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/7/2013 10:25:34 AM , Rating: 1
Think about it, really think. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Ford's idea to do this exclusively. There's probably some European mandate or fine or tax, what-have-you, that made this the better option.

Also Europeans have this weird stigma against "yank V8's", even though a pretty large percentage of their own vehicles have V8 or larger engines. Mercedes, BMW, Range Rover etc etc. When you listen to a typical European speak about the American auto industry, you get the impression they believe we're all still driving around in "gas guzzlers" from the 1970's.


By Totally on 3/7/2013 10:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, same reason Ferrari's new halo and other supercar manufacturers lineups are sporting new hybrids to improve overall fleet fuel economy rather than face steep fines.


RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By tng on 3/7/2013 11:06:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
There's probably some European mandate or fine or tax, what-have-you
You would be correct. In some European countries (Austria at least, probably more) the registration fees for your car are based partly on engine displacement. The larger the engine the larger the registration fee.

In other areas of Europe I understand that registration fees are based on Horsepower, so the higher the horsepower the higher the fee.

In terms of displacement fee, that has lead to advancement of engine technology, fees based on the horsepower (Finland) is just pure social engineering.


RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By wolrah on 3/8/2013 10:46:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In terms of displacement fee, that has lead to advancement of engine technology, fees based on the horsepower (Finland) is just pure social engineering.


I disagree with both, the correct way to achieve the supposed goals of these (encouraging efficiency) is to base the fees on some metric involving the emissions and possibly fuel consumption. Displacement and horsepower are only loosely related to either of these.

For example, if I swap a LS1 in to a FD RX7 I've just more than quadrupled the displacement and gained 25-50 HP, but I've nearly doubled the mileage and significantly cut the emissions. Yet in these countries I'd be paying more for having done the right thing by their supposed goals.

As I've argued here many times, displacement is practically meaningless on its own. In the context of passenger vehicles it's hard to even ballpark any of the factors that actually matter (power output, overall size, weight, and efficiency) from displacement. You can have 8.1L engines from the early emissions era putting out under 200HP or 1.3L engines exceeding 500HP. A DOHC 4.6L V8 from a early '00s Mustang absolutely dwarfs a 5.0L V8 from a early '90s or prior Mustang. The aformentioned LS1 barely affects the weight of said RX7 even though it's a 5.7L lump replacing a 1.3L turbo.

Within the same engine family (say GM GenIII for an example with many varieties of the same basic block) it does roughly correlate with power output, but that's about the only sort of situation where displacement is actually useful for comparison between two engines.


By tng on 3/9/2013 2:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the correct way to achieve the supposed goals of these (encouraging efficiency) is to base the fees on some metric involving the emissions...
We were not talking about emissions, just displacement and horsepower, but it was nice of you to bring up the "Green" side of things.

Logic dictates (to a certain point) that smaller engine displacements use less fuel so, less emissions. The move of Ferrari to use a hybrid system in it's new car is a move that I think will start a top-down use of such systems. As more and more makers move to this to supplement horsepower lost due to "Green" initiatives I think it will become common place to see this. Of course this will not satisfy either the car enthusiast or the people who want us to live in the stone ages...


RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By silverblue on 3/7/2013 1:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'm sure you're not, but in almost every car article on here, it's full of people discussing their V8-this and V8-that. It's quite a far cry from most Europeans. And yes, we get taxed to hell and back based on emissions, fuel is extremely pricey, and car insurance is based generally on how much horsepower you have under the bonnet, so having a large engined car is more of a luxury here (unless you have somebody else forking out for it).

My view of "Yank V8s" is that a lot of them appear to be very much lacking in power, presumably to use less fuel. Would this be an accurate assessment? Are a lot of V8s simply underpowered?


RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By dubldwn on 3/7/2013 1:39:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My view of "Yank V8s" is that a lot of them appear to be very much lacking in power, presumably to use less fuel. Would this be an accurate assessment? Are a lot of V8s simply underpowered?

American V8’s hold their own just fine…

Mustang 5.0… 420@6500
Jaguar XK 5.0…385@6500
BMW M3 4.0…414@8300

For your part the Dodge/Chevy Eagle/LS3 are clearly held back at least somewhat for product placement and/or efficiency and/or longevity reasons.


RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By FITCamaro on 3/7/2013 1:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
Bigger displacement = more torque and having to work a lot less hard to make the same power. You don't need as aggressive of cams which means better fuel economy as well.


By silverblue on 3/7/2013 2:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you to you both.


RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By barturtle75 on 3/8/2013 11:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
However you still have the mechanical friction of 4 more cylinders dragging down fuel econ. Plus the weight of the engine. You burn more fuel at idle just to keep the engine turning over, burn more to move it off the line, burn more to roll it around place to place.

The weight is even more significant when Euro drivers tend to put more emphasis on handing. The big heavy lump of a V8 really screws handling when compared to a lighter 4 or 6.


By JediJeb on 3/8/2013 7:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Some of that weight vs handling problem can be solved by moving the engine farther back to achieve better balance. If you look at the old AC Cobra in which Carol Shelby place a huge big block 427 cid V8, that car had awesome handling because he achieved nearly 50/50 front rear weight distribution.

Also all aluminum V8s are not so heavy when used in a car the size of a Mustang. I had a 99 Trans Am with the almunium LS6 and it was balanced and handled pretty well too.


By theapparition on 3/11/2013 2:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However you still have the mechanical friction of 4 more cylinders dragging down fuel econ.

Very correct. Even displacement on demand will require a bit of energy from friction. A V8 or V12 can never be as efficient as a 4 or 6 cyl engine. There will be extra pumping work and rotational inertia to deal with.

quote:
Plus the weight of the engine......The weight is even more significant when Euro drivers tend to put more emphasis on handing. The big heavy lump of a V8 really screws handling when compared to a lighter 4 or 6.

Absolutely incorrect. The weight of a typical small block engine is less than most high power 4 cyl turbo designs. You have to consider the weight of the turbos and plumbing as well, not to mention that they are overly complicated.

Maybe someone should let Ferrari know that big lumps of V8s screw with handling. LOL.

V8s have their place for performance cars, and then complaining that a performance car doesn't get the same mileage as a Prius is ridiculous. Simply put, most V6 or I6 will never be able to get the performance that a typical V8 will.


RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By BrgMx5 on 3/7/2013 1:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely no stigma against "yank V8's", just a little problem with the $8.68 a gallon.

The V8's are a lot cheaper to maintain than supercharged or turbocharged I4, but the gas is really expensive around here.

This is probably just a marketing decision from Ford.


RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By theapparition on 3/7/2013 2:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
But when a similar hp V8 gets comparable fuel economy to a turbo 4cyl, that becomes a moot point.

I've yet to see ANY comparable engine get significantly better fuel economy over a decent small block V8, such as the Chevy LS3.

Still insurance and engine displacement tax are drivers. I get that. But the notion that V8s drink more is bunk. Now that's always assuming comparing similar hp engines. V8s certainly use more than 100hp economy engines.


RE: Out with the new, in with the old.
By Chaser on 3/8/2013 2:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
My Ford Focus ST -made in Spain- turbo 4 gets 36MPG 252HP 270ft/lbs torque.

A Corvette LS3 gets close to a 4cyl turbo when its in top gear floating on a flat highway with a tail wind. (Owner of a C5 Z06 and C6).

MOST 4 cyl turbos gets overall better gas mileage in mixed driving that all recent stock Corvettes.


By JediJeb on 3/8/2013 7:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the supercharged V6 in the current Mustang make 300+hp while getting 30+mpg on the highway? Why not use one of those.


By theapparition on 3/11/2013 2:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
I said comparable engine.

You can't possibly suggest that your 252hp engine is anywhere comparable to a 436hp one, can you?

The comment that 4cyl turbos get better mileage than recent Corvettes is a big, "Well duh?" moment. Now go show me a 4cyl turbo car that gets close to 400hp AND delivers better fuel economy. I won't really be waiting as I know you won't find one.


By alpha754293 on 3/10/2013 3:32:45 AM , Rating: 2
Two things - 1) European engines (much like Europeans) - typically ARE more sophistcated (complicated) than their American counterparts. And American V8s are regarded as simple, and cheap, and not very well built or engines of quality.

2) Americans ARE still driving around gas guzzlers. Considering the options that are available to pretty much EVERY OTHER MARKET OTHER THAN AMERICA (even from American manufacturers) - they're all farrr more efficient elsewhere. Ask a North American salesperson or marketing or exec - they say that that's cuz there's no demand for it here in North America.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki