pres589 wrote: If they can somehow get the beltline towards the ground and improve visibility from inside the car, this sounds right up my street.
Not going to happen anymore, unfortunately. Pedestrian safety standards mean we all have to drive minivans if we want a new car.
kreb wrote: I never thought that the eco-boost F series pickups would be successful, yet they are.
You are not the only one thinking like that.
pres589 wrote: If they can somehow get the beltline towards the ground and improve visibility from inside the car, this sounds right up my street.
New safety rules in Europe and here make that unlikely.
To me outside visibility IS a safety feature.
My current 05 GT had a factory 300HP and is a little lighter than the current body but not much. It's still a lot of fun to drive. Getting that from a 4 banger in the next chassis should be a win-win on power and mileage as long as they don't let the weight increase. Even if they don't really decrease it, it should still make for a fun package. If they actually do a lightweight version ( which I kind of doubt) it would be a screamin' ball of win.
carguy123 wrote:pres589 wrote: If they can somehow get the beltline towards the ground and improve visibility from inside the car, this sounds right up my street.New safety rules in Europe and here make that unlikely. To me outside visibility IS a safety feature.
I do find using mirrors terribly difficult. I don't really have a problem see out of new cars, then again, I'm not always trying find something to complain about for every car made after '95.
In reply to z31maniac:
You're supposed to check blind spots as well.
One thing I don't get with this is offering it as a premium engine choice.
The Taurus, Explorer, and Fusion are all moving to having a small ecoboost as their base engine, so having an EB base certainly wouldn't be unprecedented if done in the Mustang. Couple that with the minimal difference in the rumoured specs for the EB 2.3 and the existing 3.7L V6 along with the perception issues with a 4-cylinder Mustang, and I don't see many Americans springing to pay extra for one.
Now, I do see it as a very good base-model engine. Ford seems to be replacing all the rest of their N/A V6s with EB4s, so the Mustang following that trend makes sense. The type of people who buy a Mustang and don't make sure they get a V8 are not as fickle about what engine they do get, so I don't see a switch on the base engine inherently costing Ford any sales.
An SVO doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in this day in age. When the fox chassis was out, a Mustang built for handling was something special. With the current models, the base GT is already an excellent handling car (see every fanboy's favorite coMparison involving a c3rtain Bavarian), and the Boss already takes it up a notch. While this is supposed to be the last year of the Boss, I just don't see a 300-350hp SVO doing well as a follow-up act to a 444hp Boss 302, at least not without a serious drop in price and weight.
pres589 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: You're supposed to check blind spots as well.
Would have never guessed! Thanks for the tip!
i see you missed the sarcasm in my post
well, in both the F150 and the fusion, the base engine is not an ecoboost. The Fusion has a 2.xL nonboosted 4cyl base, a 1.6L Ecoboost midrange, and a 2.0L Ecoboost top drawer. The pickup has an NA v6 base. Not sure about the others though...
I see history repeating itself. The fox body SVO was an overpriced, underwhelming, flop. On top of that, many dealers tried to add sizeable markups over MSRP due to the "exclusivity".
I don't see a successful slot in the Mustang lineup for this adventure. Before anybody gets in a tizzy, I had a 1986 SVO that I purchased brand spanking new in July 1987 at a significant discount. It was a nice car and I waited several years to get one at a price I felt was reasonable, but I wouldn't (and didn't) pay the same or more than a new GT for it.
Nashco wrote:aussiesmg wrote: When the 2015 Ford Mustang hits American dealerships, it’ll be offered with a 2.3-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder engine as an option – and chances are, that won’t be the base model engine.Am I the only one that read that and thought, "OH NO, not another 2.3 naturally aspirated turd of a Mustang!!!" Dark times, those were... Bryce
Yeah, i noticed that as well. But, it's entirely possible that a 2.3-ish n/a motor in the next mustang wont actually suck. Depends on weight, probably. But, for example, the new Accord coupe base 4cyl weighs about 3200lb, makes 200hp, and Motor Trend ran it at 15.1@92 in the 1/4. Thats faster than the previous 240hp V6 in the mustang ran. If the next mustang can drop a couple hundred lbs and make similar power, i have to figure it will not be THAT slow.
You'll need to log in to post.
