2018 Mustang Information (Options/Packages, Colors)

[MX5Racer]

I'm looking forward to see what kind of sound systems will be offered for the 2018 !!

From what I heard, Its coming with SYNC 3 V2.0 with the ability to upgrade to SYNC 4 by the end of the year. :gossip:

Sponsored

 

[wireeater]

Actually, 8 gears would be plenty. Why the jump from 6 to 10, just curious?

Just like everything else, emissions and efficiency.

 

[69mach1-395]

4 OD gears? So you can idle on the highway?
Does anyone know what the ratios are?

 

[RNMAAS]

I'm looking forward to see what kind of sound systems will be offered for the 2018 !!

It's a few months old, but from Automobile, September, 2016:

"While Ford will continue to use Shaker audio systems for the Mustang, a Ford spokesperson confirms that anywhere you currently see a Sony system (Focus, Fusion, Explorer Platinum, to name a few) it will soon be replaced with a B&O Play system."

 

[Shark77]

4 OD gears? So you can idle on the highway?
Does anyone know what the ratios are?

It looks like 3 OD gears. Here's what GM published with gear ratios.

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/...ages/news/us/en/2016/may/0511-10speed-gm.html

 

[l'Ingegnere]

Based on the fact that it seems Ford is adopting some GT styling cues for the upcoming Fiesta, I think it could definitely make sense for someone here to try photoshopping the lower portion of the GT's front bumper onto the Mustang. Frankly, I'm actually surprised I haven't seen anyone try it yet.

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

It looks like 3 OD gears. Here's what GM published with gear ratios.

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/...ages/news/us/en/2016/may/0511-10speed-gm.html

If fuel economy is the goal, tenth seems like a bit of a waste. Why even include another OD gear if it's only 4 hundredths of a turn taller? It seems to me it would have made a hell of a lot more sense to round out the package with a .55 ratio for 80mph cruising.... or maybe a 2nd Reverse gear :headbonk:

 

[BmacIL]

If fuel economy is the goal, tenth seems like a bit of a waste. Why even include another OD gear if it's only 4 hundredths of a turn taller? It seems to me it would have made a hell of a lot more sense to round out the package with a .55 ratio for 80mph cruising.... or maybe a 2nd Reverse gear :headbonk:

Because then it can downshift into 9th almost imperceptibly for slight hills on the highway to give just a bit more torque instead of kicking down significantly and spiking fuel consumption.

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

Because then it can downshift into 9th almost imperceptibly for slight hills on the highway to give just a bit more torque instead of kicking down significantly and spiking fuel consumption.

That doesn't make sense. If ninth gear is .69 in either case then the fuel economy for tenth would just be that much lower at .64. That'said not an improvement, it's a farce.

 

[Shark77]

That doesn't make sense. If ninth gear is .69 in either case then the fuel economy for tenth would just be that much lower at .64. That'said not an improvement, it's a farce.

Let's put some perspective on this...

>$1 billion went into developing this transmission between Ford and GM. Occam's razor would suggest this isn't a marketing scheme, but rather built on engineering since a partnership between competitors is involved and a tremendous amount of money has been invested. They're both trying to comply with upcoming CAFE standards.

Specifically, to your comment about .69 to .64: that's almost a 10% reduction in RPM between gears. The goal to maximize fuel economy at a steady state is producing the absolute minimal amount of HP to keep a vehicle at a given speed. So, because of frictional losses in the same engine a lower RPM will allow for less HP to be produced to maintain that given speed.

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

Let's put some perspective on this...

>$1 billion went into developing this transmission between Ford and GM. Occam's razor would suggest this isn't a marketing scheme, but rather built on engineering since a partnership between competitors is involved and a tremendous amount of money has been invested. They're both trying to comply with upcoming CAFE standards.

Specifically, to your comment about .69 to .64: that's almost a 10% reduction in RPM between gears. The goal to maximize fuel economy at a steady state is producing the absolute minimal amount of HP to keep a vehicle at a given speed. So, because of frictional losses in the same engine a lower RPM will allow for less HP to be produced to maintain that given speed.

.69 to .64 is not close to 10% reduction, it' so just over 7%. When you compare that to the 19% differential between gears 8 and 9, it suggests that the ratios were tuned for control windows, or limited performance envelopes.

Having fit a curve, I have found that 10th gear is not in fact too short, 9th is too tall. 8th gear is correct, but 7th is also too tall. 1st through 6th are correct. Perhaps correct is the wrong word to use though, as it assumes that all gears are intended to be applied as a sequential progression. It would seem that they are in fact not.

What we have here is an 8 speed sequence with (tertiary) underdrive gears for the 7th and 8th sequence.

Having applied final drive ratios and compared them with average speed and acceleration tables, I found no correlation. Having compared the same ratios to EPA testing windows, I found a match.

Essentially, it seems the gear set gives up real world fuel economy for higher EPA fuel economy scores.

 

[TexasRebel]

ZF don't have a 10-speed, although I suspect they are/will be working on one.

IIRC, the 6-speed in the Mustang is based on the 6-speed ZF design (not sure if it was built under license).

I would assume Ford wouldn't want to throw away the strengths of the 6-speed, but whether the 10-speed is a clean sheet design, or a heavily revised 6-speed, I don't know.

ZF has a 9-, 12-, and 16-speed. I doubt a 10 would do them much good.

 

[BmacIL]

.69 to .64 is not close to 10% reduction, it' so just over 7%. When you compare that to the 19% differential between gears 8 and 9, it suggests that the ratios were tuned for control windows, or limited performance envelopes.

Having fit a curve, I have found that 10th gear is not in fact too short, 9th is too tall. 8th gear is correct, but 7th is also too tall. 1st through 6th are correct. Perhaps correct is the wrong word to use though, as it assumes that all gears are intended to be applied as a sequential progression. It would seem that they are in fact not.

What we have here is an 8 speed sequence with (tertiary) underdrive gears for the 7th and 8th sequence.

Having applied final drive ratios and compared them with average speed and acceleration tables, I found no correlation. Having compared the same ratios to EPA testing windows, I found a match.

Essentially, it seems the gear set gives up real world fuel economy for higher EPA fuel economy scores.

I never said it was going to translate realistically to the driver, just that there's a numerical benefit. Whether or not the noise factors in the real world allow it to be realized is a different story. Either way, more ratios gives more options to place the engine in a region of higher operating efficiency.

 

[NoVaGT]

That'said not an improvement, it's a farce.

The 10spd auto in the Camaro ZL1 is faster than the manual around a race track. It shifts faster than Porsche's PDK.

It's not a farce, it's the future, even for those that track their cars.

Plus, if you drive in traffic, it would be a God send. You get the fastest version of the Mustang, with an auto-trans.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Plus, if you drive in traffic, it would be a God send.

No, it won't unless you don't like to shift. More is better when it comes to many things such as sex, money, shifting, etc..

Sponsored