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 wolrah on 3/8/2013 10:46:39 PM , Rating: 1
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
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...

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

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