Last year for V8 2024 (and Mach-E discussion) via Ford Performance conference call

[IronG]

That's not quite how the physics work. It still takes a certain amount of energy to move a vehicle down the road regardless of peak power. If you want to increase range, you reduce losses. Rolling resistance (thinner and harder rubber, magnetic bearings, etc...), Drag, weight, etc... All need to be reduced in order to increase range. That or just go crazy and increase the battery pack size (Tesla roadster with a 200kw pack and an estimated range over 600 miles)

Your not completely wrong, but its not the physics your thinking about. Most of what you said can be achieved with software. Tesla wants to promote how much faster they are than an ICE car and proof positive with the funny stunt with the F-150. Yes, you need enough torque to get it going, but after that it can be adjusted to retard it. If I'm not mistaken, there are different modes all ready to improve performance. They can also play around with the "drive train" to help. It is just not a priority to favor range over performance. I think you will start seeing this occur as more companies get cars out, especially lower cost models where speed is of no use to them.

Sponsored

 

[Bikeman315]

Wait until they actually charge what they are losing with ICE cars. Based on the article, probably double what they charge now.

As for the politicians, not all of them have the environment at the forefront of their to do lists...both sides of the aisle, however you sentiment is not lost on the irony of it all.

Until my daughter registered her Honda hybrid last week I didn’t even know about these fees. Based on the numbers in this article $60.00 for two years isn’t so bad.

 

[zackmd1]

Your not completely wrong, but its not the physics your thinking about. Most of what you said can be achieved with software. Tesla wants to promote how much faster they are than an ICE car and proof positive with the funny stunt with the F-150. Yes, you need enough torque to get it going, but after that it can be adjusted to retard it. If I'm not mistaken, there are different modes all ready to improve performance. They can also play around with the "drive train" to help. It is just not a priority to favor range over performance. I think you will start seeing this occur as more companies get cars out, especially lower cost models where speed is of no use to them.

??? Not quite sure how you can reduce weight, drag, and rolling resistance through software???

Yes they can tweak the software/firmware to squeeze out more efficient operation. I just got an update 2 weeks ago that added about 10 miles of range because of this. You are not going to get massive increases in range if you drop peak power though. Like I said, it takes a certain amount of energy to move a vehicle at 70mph down the road (not even taking into account starting). You might see single digit or maybe low double digit increases in range with a significant cut of peak power but the trade off likely isn't worth it.

 

[zackmd1]

Your not completely wrong, but its not the physics your thinking about. Most of what you said can be achieved with software. Tesla wants to promote how much faster they are than an ICE car and proof positive with the funny stunt with the F-150. Yes, you need enough torque to get it going, but after that it can be adjusted to retard it. If I'm not mistaken, there are different modes all ready to improve performance. They can also play around with the "drive train" to help. It is just not a priority to favor range over performance. I think you will start seeing this occur as more companies get cars out, especially lower cost models where speed is of no use to them.

And oh by the way, Teslas have an acceleration mode called "chill mode" that effectively does what you are asking. It limits peak power and acceleration available to make it feel more like an economy car (for or those that are used to those cars and can't handle the extra power). It doesn't increase range in a meaningful way....

 

[Bikeman315]

And oh by the way, Teslas have an acceleration model called "chill mode" that effectively does what you are asking. It limits peak power and acceleration available to make it feel more like an economy car (for or those that are used to those cars and can't handle the extra power). It doesn't increase range in a meaningful way....

Hey, maybe we can get a “chill mode” for this thread Sorry it’s been a long day...........

 

[CrashOverride]

A lot of the arguments made on the first post make sense. I disagree the V8 Mustang is dead though. I do think it will die as we know it, but I do think that a OHV engine will return. Why? Trucks, that's why. And why not an Ecoboost solution? Fleets. Why? I general, big, dumb V-8's don't want to die. You can ride them hard and put them back wet, and tomorrow morning after a bit of coughing, they are ready for the next whipping. Smaller displacement engines with more gear reduction doesn't lend itself to the same abuse, even more so for turbos. (Yes heavy-duty diesels are a different story).

So I personally see the F150 ditching the Coyote/Mod motor entirely. It's a high revving V8 that they are trying to turn into a lower revving torque monster, and that isn't smart. If you want torque, you go big. If you go big, but want cheap, then you don't spin stuff fast. Also, you ditch extra cams, lifters, springs, rockers etc. That's why the new 7.3L was created. It would be extremely easy for Ford to do the opposite of what they did for the mod motor (Go from 4.6 to 5.2L in biggest varient) -- go fro 7.3L to 6L or 5.8L if they want to do the whole 351 heritage thing. Just reduce the bore a bit, and presto, an overbuilt tough-as-nails cheap/dumb engine. So in my mind, that takes care of the F150.

Ford is a bit more willing to break precedence for cars, as in the Ford GT and the twin-turbo V6. Now the GT and the Mustang are different animals. There are a lot of people that would stop buying a Mustang if it didn't come in a V8. People that buy a Ford GT are more concerned about it being an exotic, and about it being really fast on a track, compared to the V8 roar. I still think a Mustang will have a V8, but it's going to be some lightweight (aluminum) variant of the 7.3L block, but probably not bigger than 6L for european regs.

Whether we like it or not, GM and the LS is really the best way to go. Not saying it's a better or worse engine, but it's a way to make a good block work for a sports car, truck, SUV and a van.

 

[Shifting_Gears]

A lot of the arguments made on the first post make sense. I disagree the V8 Mustang is dead though. I do think it will die as we know it, but I do think that a OHV engine will return. Why? Trucks, that's why. And why not an Ecoboost solution? Fleets. Why? I general, big, dumb V-8's don't want to die. You can ride them hard and put them back wet, and tomorrow morning after a bit of coughing, they are ready for the next whipping. Smaller displacement engines with more gear reduction doesn't lend itself to the same abuse, even more so for turbos. (Yes heavy-duty diesels are a different story).

So I personally see the F150 ditching the Coyote/Mod motor entirely. It's a high revving V8 that they are trying to turn into a lower revving torque monster, and that isn't smart. If you want torque, you go big. If you go big, but want cheap, then you don't spin stuff fast. Also, you ditch extra cams, lifters, springs, rockers etc. That's why the new 7.3L was created. It would be extremely easy for Ford to do the opposite of what they did for the mod motor (Go from 4.6 to 5.2L in biggest varient) -- go fro 7.3L to 6L or 5.8L if they want to do the whole 351 heritage thing. Just reduce the bore a bit, and presto, an overbuilt tough-as-nails cheap/dumb engine. So in my mind, that takes care of the F150.

Ford is a bit more willing to break precedence for cars, as in the Ford GT and the twin-turbo V6. Now the GT and the Mustang are different animals. There are a lot of people that would stop buying a Mustang if it didn't come in a V8. People that buy a Ford GT are more concerned about it being an exotic, and about it being really fast on a track, compared to the V8 roar. I still think a Mustang will have a V8, but it's going to be some lightweight (aluminum) variant of the 7.3L block, but probably not bigger than 6L for european regs.

Whether we like it or not, GM and the LS is really the best way to go. Not saying it's a better or worse engine, but it's a way to make a good block work for a sports car, truck, SUV and a van.

Cheap and dumb.. I like it. Instantly makes me think of 90’s 302 and 350 offerings from Ford and Chebby. 250k gutless miles on the engine, but damn if it won’t turn over those mud tires and sound good doing it.

 

[zackmd1]

A lot of the arguments made on the first post make sense. I disagree the V8 Mustang is dead though. I do think it will die as we know it, but I do think that a OHV engine will return. Why? Trucks, that's why. And why not an Ecoboost solution? Fleets. Why? I general, big, dumb V-8's don't want to die. You can ride them hard and put them back wet, and tomorrow morning after a bit of coughing, they are ready for the next whipping. Smaller displacement engines with more gear reduction doesn't lend itself to the same abuse, even more so for turbos. (Yes heavy-duty diesels are a different story).

So I personally see the F150 ditching the Coyote/Mod motor entirely. It's a high revving V8 that they are trying to turn into a lower revving torque monster, and that isn't smart. If you want torque, you go big. If you go big, but want cheap, then you don't spin stuff fast. Also, you ditch extra cams, lifters, springs, rockers etc. That's why the new 7.3L was created. It would be extremely easy for Ford to do the opposite of what they did for the mod motor (Go from 4.6 to 5.2L in biggest varient) -- go fro 7.3L to 6L or 5.8L if they want to do the whole 351 heritage thing. Just reduce the bore a bit, and presto, an overbuilt tough-as-nails cheap/dumb engine. So in my mind, that takes care of the F150.

Ford is a bit more willing to break precidence, as in the Ford GT and the twin-turbo V6. Now the GT and the Mustang are different animals. There are a lot of people that would stop buying a Mustang if it didn't come in a V8. People that buy a Ford GT are more concerned about it being an exotic, and about it being really fast on a track, compared to the V8 roar. I still think a Mustang will have a V8, but it's going to be some lightweight (aluminum) variant of the 7.3L.

Whether we like it or not, GM and the LS is really the best way to go. Not saying it's a better or worse engine, but it's a way to make a good block work for a sports car, truck, SUV and a van.

To be completely honest, the mod architecture has always been overly complicated for what it offers.... When GM can get 28+ mpg out of a 6.3L V8 (cylinder deactivation) while Ford can barely manage 25mpg out of a 5.0l engine, the benefits of the more efficient valvetrain start to disappear.... That plus the packaging issues of a massive DOHC head design makes you wonder if Ford would have been better served updating the SBF architecture and going the route of GM with larger displacement engines with cylinder deactivation tech...

 

[EcoVert]

Science has become big business like everything else whoever is paying for it gets the result they wanted. Now a days the scientist explanation for everything is ether climate change or black holes.

 

[EcoVert]

zackmd1 said

When GM can get 28+ mpg out of a 6.3L V8 (cylinder deactivation) while Ford can barely manage 25mpg out of a 5.0l engine,

I have a few friends that have chevys and there hard pressed to see 15mpg's this must be something they only have in Maryland.

 

[zackmd1]

zackmd1 said

When GM can get 28+ mpg out of a 6.3L V8 (cylinder deactivation) while Ford can barely manage 25mpg out of a 5.0l engine,

I have a few friends that have chevys and there hard pressed to see 15mpg's this must be something they only have in Maryland.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ro...tte-stingray-wrong-and-it-will-return-30-mpg/

Officially the C7 got 29mpg highway. With a change to the way EPA tests vehicles, 2017 and newer models were only rated at 25mpg. Still "matching" the Mustang with 1.3l more engine.

 

[Shifting_Gears]

zackmd1 said

When GM can get 28+ mpg out of a 6.3L V8 (cylinder deactivation) while Ford can barely manage 25mpg out of a 5.0l engine,

I have a few friends that have chevys and there hard pressed to see 15mpg's this must be something they only have in Maryland.

Not saying that’s untrue, but ever since the LS1 was put into the F body or Vette’s of the 90’s cracking off high 20’s on the highway was a fairly normal thing.

 

[Silver Bullitt]

Not saying that’s untrue, but ever since the LS1 was put into the F body or Vette’s of the 90’s cracking off high 20’s on the highway was a fairly normal thing.

I got 12 mpg in my 6.0 2500HD. I got 26 mpg in the cammed 6.0 in my GTO, albeit there was probably a 2500 lb weight difference.

 

[L8APEX]

The entire first post is conjecture. Lol @ thinking a "green new deal" is the reason that the V8 is going away. There is no green new deal. When I read that line, I knew the OP was full of shit.

 

[9secondko]

Spin. All it is.

People will speak with their dollars.

Electric is fine. Even in a Mustang. SUV form factor is completely ridiculous. Fail there.

San Fransisco and Seattle will buy it anyway. Most of the rest of the country won’t.

The V8 thing is a lie. First of Al, Cortez ins’t Getting the “green new deal” anywhere as it’s a nightmare, doesn’t accomplish anything, and can’t be funded without pushing the country into the dark ages. And neither Biden nor Hilary will be president to push it.

Ford could easily ecoboost the V8 and have it viable or electric assist.

Problem is you have a CEO that doesn’t belong there and people just graduating college with positions they shouldn’t have with ideals that have no bearing in real life.

Ford can get into the electric game. That’s great. Everyone needs to. But I’d rather buy a Tesla model X than an SUV pretending to be a Mustang.

Sponsored