Ford: V8 time is over

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by chevypower

The combination of turbocharging and DI seem to do wonders on petrol engines. GTDI is really taking off.

Not sure if I follow you here, are you referring to the Golf GTD? If so that is not a DI and turbo petrol, its a turbo diesel with a bit more grunt and sportiness than the golf TDI.

[FPV GTHO]

I think it means Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection.

[KIWI-1]

Originally Posted by TMC

I hope the yanks stick to their V8's. Imagine a Mustang with anything less? I can't.

Bet you didn't think the clowns would put a 4-cylinder in a Falcon either?

[Nikked]

Mustang is getting a Turbo 4 too....again...

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Mustang is getting a Turbo 4 too....again...

I always wondered what the Mustang would be like with the XR6T engine in it...I came close to buying a 1966 Mustang which had no motor or box, and had my eye on a BF engine and (I think) five speed auto at the wreckers in my town at the time, as the cogs in my head started to turn...the deal fell through but it would have been interesting.

[TMC]

I think if you buy a Mustang, you don't care about fuel efficiency. You are buying a car that makes you feel a certain way. It's an aspirational purchase. An EB4 may technically tick all the boxes for pushing a car along efficiently, but you've reduced the Mustang to the aspirational level of a vacuum cleaner, or a Toyota Camry if you put a 4cyl into a Mustang. I can understand it in an entry level Falcon aimed at fleets though.

A Mustang must have a V8 or a High Performance 6 as a bare minimum IMHO.

[FPV GTHO]

Mustang will always have the halo models but CAFE will dictate such a high volume car will need some form of high efficiency engine

[Nikked]

Not to mention MPG targets etc...these (i recall) are met as an average of all the vehicles across the range, so the more vehicles that have a low MPG engine in them, the lower the average...and it compensates for the gruff mens engines like supercharged V8's etc...


When it comes to V8's, im sure they will never die...

For starters, you could have, say, a 4L (or there abouts) Turbo V8, with Displacment on demand, stop/start, and all these other wonderfull gizmos and have a engine that combines low fuel use, with power...


Hell, to keep cost down share componants with other engines, basically have a V8 verison of the 2L EcoBoost...

[tranquilized]

CAFE stands for coporate average fuel economy, so it relates to the makers entire fleet - not just a model range. At least thats how it was in USA in the past.

So Ford, for example, could offer the Mustang with only a V8, but would need a range of smaller, more efficient cars like a fiesta to bring the fleet average down.

The Mustang must be getting the 4cyl because there is a market for it.

Personally however, I agree with this;

Originally Posted by TMC

I think if you buy a Mustang, you don't care about fuel efficiency. You are buying a car that makes you feel a certain way. It's an aspirational purchase. An EB4 may technically tick all the boxes for pushing a car along efficiently, but you've reduced the Mustang to the aspirational level of a vacuum cleaner, or a Toyota Camry if you put a 4cyl into a Mustang. I can understand it in an entry level Falcon aimed at fleets though.

A Mustang must have a V8 or a High Performance 6 as a bare minimum IMHO.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by TMC

A Mustang must have a V8 or a High Performance 6 as a bare minimum IMHO.

Agreed. It really doesn't have that much going for it besides the driveline (the N/A Coyote is fantastic in GT form).

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

CAFE stands for coporate average fuel economy, so it relates to the makers entire fleet - not just a model range. At least thats how it was in USA in the past.

So Ford, for example, could offer the Mustang with only a V8, but would need a range of smaller, more efficient cars like a fiesta to bring the fleet average down.

The Mustang must be getting the 4cyl because there is a market for it.

Personally however, I agree with this;

The 2025 CAFE target is 35MPG. Thats 6.72L/100km.

Offering a V8 only Mustang will not achieve those targets. Getting as many existing V6 buyers to accept a turbo 4, and likewise existing GT buyers to accept a turbo 6 is what is needed. They cant sit back and expect Fiesta to take up all the slack when they need to offset F series.

[KIWI-1]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

The 2025 CAFE target is 35MPG. Thats 6.72L/100km.

Almost as good as a Mini in 1959 - now that IS progress.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

The 2025 CAFE target is 35MPG. Thats 6.72L/100km.

Offering a V8 only Mustang will not achieve those targets. Getting as many existing V6 buyers to accept a turbo 4, and likewise existing GT buyers to accept a turbo 6 is what is needed. They cant sit back and expect Fiesta to take up all the slack when they need to offset F series.

I just had a quick readup on CAFE. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...e_Fuel_Economy) There are different standards for passenger cars and light trucks - so a Fiesta doesn't need to offset the F series. Surprisingly, a makers fleet is divided - domestic (75% U.S. content & above) and foreign (everything else) Each fleet has to meet the requirements separately. Weird thing is, this arrangement was bought in by the unions to help with job creation, but it seems to me it would be more beneficial for a US auto maker to have their smaller imports offsetting their locally built V8's etc.


But anyway, I'd say you're right - they need as many engine options in each car as they can get as the CAFE standard gets higher every year.

[TMC]

To meet the 2025 CAFE target, just make a heap of hybrids. Even the V8's can be hybridised. A 250kW 4L V8 with a 100kW electric engine will be a 350kW thing at full throttle.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by TMC

To meet the 2025 CAFE target, just make a heap of hybrids. Even the V8's can be hybridised. A 250kW 4L V8 with a 100kW electric engine will be a 350kW thing at full throttle.

And 100kw electric is the equivalent to 300kw petrol in terms of performance. So it would be like having a 550kw engine.

Instead of using a 4.0 V8, I would use the 3.5 EcoBoost V6 that already has 270 kw / 570 Nm @ 1800 rpm, with an ultra-flat torque curve. Boost it to around 300 kw / 650 Nm for a non-truck application (Bully Dog aleady has a tune to take it to those figures, so I am not making it up).

BTW, those numbers are conservative. If Ford's 3.5 had the same specific power and torque numbers as Hyundai from their 2.0 GTDI, Ford would have 350 kw/640 Nm completely stock, with max boost at 17 psi.

Anyway, then add the 100kw electric motor (with about 320Nm of torque from 0 rpm). It would be like having a 600kw/970Nm petrol engine. Sure, you don't get the V8 sound, but with that much performance, would you even care?

[Nikked]

Mustangs need V8 rumble...

[2011G6E]

Yes, you do buy a Mustang for the image...the image.

If you want to market it to a large number of people, you need a cooking model with a V6 or maybe a turbo 4...many more, vastly more, people will want the looks, but not the running costs of a bigger engine. Making it a halo model only limits your range of potential buyers. You don't sell big numbers that way, and the Mustang has always had base models for the ordinary Joe.

Holden made that mistake with the new Monaro...it started out with a V6 available, but then went V8 only, then became a niche prestige model...and they wondered why they couldn't shift a lot of them.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by chevypower

And 100kw electric is the equivalent to 300kw petrol in terms of performance. So it would be like having a 550kw engine.

Instead of using a 4.0 V8, I would use the 3.5 EcoBoost V6 that already has 270 kw / 570 Nm @ 1800 rpm, with an ultra-flat torque curve. Boost it to around 300 kw / 650 Nm for a non-truck application (Bully Dog aleady has a tune to take it to those figures, so I am not making it up).

BTW, those numbers are conservative. If Ford's 3.5 had the same specific power and torque numbers as Hyundai from their 2.0 GTDI, Ford would have 350 kw/640 Nm completely stock, with max boost at 17 psi.

Anyway, then add the 100kw electric motor (with about 320Nm of torque from 0 rpm). It would be like having a 600kw/970Nm petrol engine. Sure, you don't get the V8 sound, but with that much performance, would you even care?

Flippin heck. That would be pure insanity on the road. And I like it. Would anyone know how to put those sort of power torque numbers onto the road safely though. I doubt I could. But what a ride hey.

[FPV GTHO]

You'd split it up and have it a hybrid AWD, the conventional RWD drivetrain with electric assist motors on the front wheels

[TMC]

I wonder if you could ever have it setup where the petrol engine is able to disengage itself from the drivetrain and just act as a generator and therefore sit in it's own efficiency range charging the batteries while the electrics drive the front wheels in cruise situations. With a V8 you'd get that diesel electric train sound. Deep low revs, yet moving at relatively high speed. That would be cool.

[superfly]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

I can't see how some think V8's drink fuel..
A forced 4 cyl will go through similar amount and smaller vehicle..
.

That's not true. Forced 4cyl drink less than a V8.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

The 2025 CAFE target is 35MPG. Thats 6.72L/100km. Offering a V8 only Mustang will not achieve those targets. Getting as many existing V6 buyers to accept a turbo 4, and likewise existing GT buyers to accept a turbo 6 is what is needed. They cant sit back and expect Fiesta to take up all the slack when they need to offset F series.

Yes they can because they are on two different lists, I'll explain.

Several things;
1. That target is based on the un-corrected Highway cycle which is actually 20% higher or around 9.0 l/100 km on US highway cycle.

2. CAFE differentiates domestic vehicles and imported vehicles form each manufacturer

3. The corporate CAFE mileage for a manufacturer is the combination of all cars sold and all trucks sold.

4. CAFE does not single out individual vehicles, it groups cars together and SUV/CUV and trucks together.

5. So the offset for F150 is all the other efficient SUVs and crossovers that Ford currently sells.

6. The corrected highway MPG for a 5.0 mustang is 26 mpg so uncorrected that's 31.2 mpg
The V6 is even better, 31 mpg becomes 37 mpg uncorrected

Like so much hype and froth from the US, when you research what's actually proposed, there's gaping holes for
the manufacturers to drive through. Our Aussie ca industry's self imposed targets are already arguably
where the US wants to be in a few years..

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

CAFE stands for coporate average fuel economy, so it relates to the makers entire fleet - not just a model range. At least thats how it was in USA in the past.

So Ford, for example, could offer the Mustang with only a V8, but would need a range of smaller, more efficient cars like a fiesta to bring the fleet average down.

The Mustang must be getting the 4cyl because there is a market for it.

Personally however, I agree with this;

Thats why they are bringing out a range of Focus based EV's. I'll bet they lose money on everyone they sell too, just like most other hybrids do, but they need the economy numbers for CAFE regs.

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

The 2025 CAFE target is 35MPG. Thats 6.72L/100km.

Offering a V8 only Mustang will not achieve those targets. Getting as many existing V6 buyers to accept a turbo 4, and likewise existing GT buyers to accept a turbo 6 is what is needed. They cant sit back and expect Fiesta to take up all the slack when they need to offset F series.

There has already been a turbo 4 Mustang, the early 80's SVO, which used a turbo 2.3. Went pretty well too apparently. So they aren't exactly in unchartered waters.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Holden made that mistake with the new Monaro...it started out with a V6 available, but then went V8 only, then became a niche prestige model...and they wondered why they couldn't shift a lot of them.

What?

The V6 sold in such tiny numbers it was almost comical. 98% of Monaros were V8's, and if you bought a V6 version you had something wrong with you. Thats why they ditched the V6 version come the series 2. It had no impact on sales because no one bought them anyway.

The reason they didn't shift much of them was because it was a fashion statement car, and numbers drop off rapidly once the novelty wears off. Just like it will for Veloster and 86.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

You'd split it up and have it a hybrid AWD, the conventional RWD drivetrain with electric assist motors on the front wheels

Like the forthcoming toyota supra...

[superfly]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

, and numbers drop off rapidly once the novelty wears off. Just like it will for Veloster and 86.

Maybe for the Veloster but I reckon the 86 (and BRZ twin) will both do very well for a long time.

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Exactly, bloody Euro's have a lot to answer for.

He's English. They think a 1.8 is a big engine.

[Resurrection]

The number of cylinders or engine configuration is irrelevant when engine design is considered. Even if pressures such as fuel economy, emissions and fuel costs become increasingly oppressive, there is no reason why any car company cannot produce a small capacity v8 with all the latest technology. Hence statements such as these such not be given any credibility.

[OzJavelin]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yes, you do buy a Mustang for the image...the image.

If you want to market it to a large number of people, you need a cooking model with a V6 or maybe a turbo 4...many more, vastly more, people will want the looks, but not the running costs of a bigger engine ..

Just like the original Mustang .. much loved by schoolteachers, librarians and hairdressers across American in 6-cyl automatic form. Those 6-cyl cars were probably the "money-for-jam" that made up the manufacturing losses for the K-code cars ..

[RASER]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Could you imagine a 6L I-4? I wonder what it would sound like?

S/hit?

Back in the earlier days when LandRover engines where no good [still are not, Ed.] the 110 used a 4L/4cyl Isuzu 4BDI engine, it shook like hell and noise!!, you could hear it from miles away, forget about trying to have a chat inside one.

Fancy the Poms using a Japanese engine...lol, its the Japanese brands that destroyed LandRover

[XR_Strider_GuY]

I disagree the V8 time is over. Since the onset of the first mass produced V8 in 1932 in the model A roadster it was always a premium option. Back then it costed $50 more for the flat head V8.

In today's money paying $3-4k more for a V8 seems a bargain. The V8 car culture is alive and well in America, and sure the majority will buy 6cylinders and 4 cylinders but there will always be a market for a V8.

Proof: GM are working as we speak on Gen V, direct injection and will debut in the C7 Corvette. No doubt this engine will power the premium version of sedans, trucks and SUV's. To not have a V8 is silly if the internal combustion engine is around. Speculating cars not having V8's is like speculating whether all the super cars will disappear. There will be always a market. As long as they can sell $200k Porsche's there will always be a V8 for $3-4k more than the regular model.