I don't work for Ford but I bet they'd love to know...
I remember taking part in an internet survey last year where they asked if I would be interested in a twin-turbocharged Mustang if itincreased gas mileage.
My response now, with stricter CAFE standards down theroad, if it's that ornothing,I'll take it.
Would you?
My guess is thatin a few yearsthey willintroduce the 3.5L twin turbocharged engine in the Mustang as an option to the V8.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=124186
"Called EcoBoost, the engine family will include four- and six-cylinder variants. A 2.0-liter four-cylinder EcoBoost engine, earmarked for the Explorer America Concept and other products, will deliver 275 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque. A twin-turbo 3.5-liter V6, which will be used in the all-wheel-drive MKS, will make 340 hp and 340 lb-ft of torque.
Ford said the technology will provide a fuel-economy improvement of 20-30 percent over current engines — and is relatively affordable compared with diesels and hybrids. The EcoBoost range is designed to be used in a wide variety of applications, from small cars to large trucks."
http://www.caranddriver.com/autoshow...ogy-page2.html
"Jim Farley, the former Toyota exec who now oversees Ford marketing, will have the challenge of selling consumers on data such as horsepower, torque (about 340 lb-ft in the V-6), and mpg figures, and convincing them the sound of a V-6 is the sound of saving money—even though the automaker also is working on making the V-6 sound like a V-8."
"Once Ford gets the ball rolling with the MKS, it plans to add EcoBoost technology to engines in 500,000 vehicles, including the new Flex, over the next five years, which means they will replace as much as 90 percent of the engines in the Ford family of vehicles today."
V8 is preferred, however, a nice strong turbo6 is nothing to sneeze at , if made properly. The whole idea of this being tossed around is because of the upcoming and rediculous CAFE standard of 35 mpg, for cars AND trucks. It WONT happen for trucks, unless they strip all extra weight out, shove in a 4 cylinder and stick in a low ratio rear end. Kinda defeats the purpose of a truck. Guess they will just tax the hell out of all those vehicles that dont hit the mark. Sure hate to see the late 70's come back around again. 79 Mustang 5.0=145hp
Have you guys seen the maintenace costs of a twin turbo engine? And I'm just talking about ROUTINE SCHEDULED maintenace costs... god forbid should anything go wrong as I imagine a twin-turbo rebuild would cost as much as used Cobalts.
Still, anyone whose driven the BMW 335i with the twin-turbo knows it's one of the finest engines in the world: the muscular grunt of an American V8 with the smooth rev-happiness of a Honda 6... and even great mileage at cruising speeds...
Good question and tough tough choice... I went with no but I'd change my tune in a second if Ford could show they can make em more reliable than the Bavarians have and if economies of scale increase quality and keep down costs...
340hp from a 6? Holy crap. With the decreased weight from an 8 plus more HP that today's GT, that would be one quick 'Stang.
yes thats true, but the whole thing about mustangs was small cars and big motors. i like those numbers dont get me wrong. but a mustang without a v8 just dosent seem right
__________________
13.4 -white 07 gt- sold
black 03 evo VIII not gone down track yet.
Would you buy a GT with an Ecoboost engine?
no more v8?
