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

By silverblue on 3/7/2013 1:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's a ridiculous registration tax. A 8L engine that actually gets better fuel economy than a 2L engine would also pay significantly more in tax. But that's typical Euro thinking.

Tax here in the UK is based on CO2 emissions, so if your big 8L managed to drink less than a 2L car, I don't see why it'd cost more to tax. Insurance, however, is a totally different kettle of fish.

Taxing based on CO2 emissions can only go so far. An exhaust spits out more than just that particular nasty, especially with respect to diesels. Despite the health risks, diesels are more prevalent over here (in the UK where diesel fuel is actually more expensive than petrol - a rare exception in Europe - diesels are still very popular, with some models rated well over 80mpg (I)) and it's cheaper to tax them as they produce comparatively less CO2 than a similar petrol engine. That's not going to change until either petrol becomes notably cheaper than diesel or diesels get taxed on NOx.

"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

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