Autocar - First for car news and reviews

Pictures and details of the new Ford Mustang have emerged on the web ahead of the car's launch at tomorrow's Los Angeles motor show.

Essentially a heavily revised version of the current car, the new Ford Mustang doesn't break any new ground and it sticks to the same mechanical formula. That means a choice of V8 and V6 engines, auto or manual gearboxes and a live rear axle.

Ford claims it has improved the Mustang's refinement though, with better insulation, a stiffer body structur...Read the full article

"4.0-litre V6 hasn't changed at all, and still has 207bhp and 240lb ft."

This is why ford are in trouble, Ford Europe can get that from a 2.0 straight 4 why thehell cant they!!!

 

i was thinking exactly the same thing, 4.0 v6 and you get a paltry 207 bhp. thats very lame. considering Audi are pumping out 265bhp form a 2.0 Turbo 4cyl. even Ford europe are getting 225bhp from a 4 pot turbo as in the Focus ST. even the 311bhp from the 4.6 v8 is very lame. i don't get it all. if you want to use a v8  or v6 make sure it's worth its salt with some decent amount of power. come on. the europeans can get that much power from pencil sharpeners.

QUOTE: "Ford is expected to introduce new, smaller capacity turbocharged engines in 2011 that will offer similar performance with reduced fuel consumption and emissions."

TRANSLATION: "We just heard that there's a recession on."

so the question is why gone Ford use Ford Europes 2.0 engine in the mustang, it will be quicker than the 4.0 as it is more powerful and weights alot less

There the same company why cant this happen. Also what is a "performance" car in the 21st centruty doin with a live axle!!!

I'm missing something here; where on earth in the current Ford line-up is there a 2.0 litre inline 4 producing more than 142bhp? There is a five cylinder turbo borrowed from Volvo, but that's not a four pot... I'm not disagreeing about the general sentiment re. underpowered engines compared to displacement (and probably weight), just that everyone seems to be chipping in about some theoretical 2.0 litre Ford powerplant? Also, in the world of the Mustang and most American cars you have to go for at least a "6", if not the "8". Anything else is just the poor man's choice. Very little comes down to the quality of the engine, merely how many cylinders it has. Hence minivans with 3.5 v6s and even v8s... crazy!

 

 

theonlydt:

I'm missing something here; where on earth in the current Ford line-up is there a 2.0 litre inline 4 producing more than 142bhp?

yes you are correct, my apologies!! For some reason i thought the focus ST had 2.0 4's like the golf GTI astra VXR etc....obv not a proprer petrolhead haha!!

 

davidv11:

"4.0-litre V6 hasn't changed at all, and still has 207bhp and 240lb ft."

 

I believe that the 4 litre V6 is Ford's 'Cologne V6' - you know, analagous to what was once the Essex V6 out of Dagenham. It's still made at Ford's Koeln(Cologne) engine plant too, and shipped to the States for the Mustang and a couple of SUVs(light trucks). Basically, I'm sure its dead cheap, unit cost, compared to fancy, current Zetecs and son on, especially with the design&development costs amortized aeons ago. Heck if it sells, why not. We don't live in a communist world yet, being told which motors are 'verboten' and all this old workhorse needed was for fuel prices to fall again. To wit:

As to the more general point about 'lazy', untuned sixes and eights in American cars we have to remind ourselves that their 'gas' is half to one-third the price in UK/Europe. The gas price has fallen massively, back to around $2.50/USgal from near $4 six months ago. Apparently Ford can't make enough of some versions of the F-series truck due to having massively cut capacity back in the summer when oil was at $140 and 'experts' were predicting, read ramping the price, the $200 barrel by end of 2008. Funny world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine

They use the 4.0 V6 because it's cheap (mass produced for various truck/minivan applications; basic technology) and has a torquey delivery suited to auto transmission. The US market still doesn't weight fuel consumption as an important a factor as we do over here. Remember, the basic Mustang is a cheap car, coming in at under $20k for a basic one (probably a lot less with the big discounts around at the moment).

The engines you guys are talking about are forced-induction. Obviously they will get much better bhp/litre than a naturally aspirated engine.

That said, with the V6 being the runt of the Mustang litter, they might as well depurify it a little more by fitting a turbocharged engine.

Autocar:

But the biggest change is inside, where the car gets a heavily upgraded interior that is said to be a big improvement on the current cabin.

Ford claims all of the hard plastics have been replaced by soft-touch materials, and the metallic trim on the facia is now real metal, rather than plastic.

 

 

And you can't even show us a decent picture of the interior changes!

A Mustang, it is with a big naturally-aspirated engine (sorry for the GT500). If you want a small supercharged engine, buy a Golf GTI which will be even better. An important point, it is the way of delivering the power. Nothing is worth the charm of an naturally-aspirated engine (the sound, the revs range). Long live the variety!