2018 Mustang refresh?

[cosmo]

The F-series accounts for about half of Ford's profits in the US. It's far less than that worldwide. The government shouldn't be regulating CO2 emissions at all. If they are looking to incentivise people to buy fuel efficient vehicles, they should just regulate the import of foreign oil to maintain a minimum petroleum commodity price (let's say $60/bbl for wti) in the US market. That makes gas more expensive and the money goes towards creating (or restoring) jobs in the energy sector rather than paying for more government waste. As a bonus, it isolates us from opec's destructive market control practices. Obviously, if there was a supply shortage in the US and oil prices went to high, import regulations could be eased to keep the prices in check (maybe $80/bbl for wti).

What about those who are too poor to pay for these artificially inflated gasoline prices? Not to mention you'd likely see prices of food go up, unless you kept the emissions control in that sector allowing them tax breaks. The amount you'd have to tax to push people towards more fuel efficient vehicles would be near when the last gas hike was if not more, ~$4.50-5.50 per gallon. That's a huge stressor.

Vehicles are unfairly pinched by CAFE, but introducing high taxes on gas would likely do more harm than good.

Also, Ford doesn't really make much profit anywhere but FNA. I'm betting the F-series has a larger chunk than just "half" of FNA profit. The operating margin in FNA greatly helps but still, F-series is the blood of Ford. Ask anyone in the know about how much Ford makes per truck. It's comical.
https://corporate.ford.com/content/...arnings/2016/2016-2Q-Corp-Earnings-Slides.pdf

Sponsored

 

[15wile]

Exactly. I seem to remember a 1 trillion dollar stimulus that was supposed to be used for new roads and infrastructure. Where did that money go?

Not here. Traffic still blows chunks in my town.

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

What about those who are too poor to pay for these artificially inflated gasoline prices? Not to mention you'd likely see prices of food go up, unless you kept the emissions control in that sector allowing them tax breaks. The amount you'd have to tax to push people towards more fuel efficient vehicles would be near when the last gas hike was if not more, ~$4.50-5.50 per gallon. That's a huge stressor.

Vehicles are unfairly pinched by CAFE, but introducing high taxes on gas would likely do more harm than good.

Also, Ford doesn't really make much profit anywhere but FNA. I'm betting the F-series has a larger chunk than just "half" of FNA profit. The operating margin in FNA greatly helps but still, F-series is the blood of Ford. Ask anyone in the know about how much Ford makes per truck. It's comical.
https://corporate.ford.com/content/...arnings/2016/2016-2Q-Corp-Earnings-Slides.pdf

Let me say first and foremost that I do not support any synthetic market manipulation whatsoever, including taxes on fuel or C02 emission mandates. That said, my proposal was an alternative to a tax on fuel and the current regulations which have inflated the capital cost of vehicles and furthermore compromises the function, or otherwise focuses the purpose somewhere other than the needs of consumers.

The current CAFE and CARB regulations are costing you thousands of dollars in capital and maintenance costs. Let's just say for arguments sake that it's $300 a year or $1500 over 5 years.

I believe the fuel tax alternative offered was meant to replace those standards, and for arguments sake would be expenditure neutral to the consumer; IE pay $1500 less to ford for a car 5 years from now, but pay $1500 dollars more in fuel taxes to the federal government over 5 years.

My import regulation alternative would have you pay $1500 more in fuel costs to oil producers, not the federal government or ford.

In any case you pay $1500 dollars more in the next 5 years. The difference is how it affects the vehicle and who you pay.

 

[TexArmageddon]

Things I want?

No DI
Stronger engine and driveline internals.
Gt350 intake and MAYBE heads( obviously giving a power bump) with an 8k RPM and I'll be satisfied.

I could care less about weight... isn't worth the investment IMHO unless we are talking less than 34xxlbs

 

[5LITER]

Direct injection by itself creates problems. I pray ford uses dual injection.

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

Things I want?

No DI
Stronger engine and driveline internals.
Gt350 intake and MAYBE heads( obviously giving a power bump) with an 8k RPM and I'll be satisfied.

I could care less about weight... isn't worth the investment IMHO unless we are talking less than 34xxlbs

GT350 intake and heads makes for WAY more than a power bump. I wouldn't want the GT350 intake though. It has less plenum volume than the stock GT intake and kills low end torque. The GT350 heads can definitely survive continous operation at 8k RPM, but any mass-production rotating assembly is going to have issues. I think a 7500RPM redline would be more realistic. In any case, the current coyote isn'the lacking in peak power. It'seems lacking in low-end torque, the only way to solve that issue is with increased displacement, DI, or better plumbing... or all three

 

[BmacIL]

Direct injection by itself creates problems. I pray ford uses dual injection.

 

[1320']

Just throwing Voodoo heads on a 5.0 block is a bad idea. Due to the bore diameter difference you'll see valve shrouding. Also, IIRC, a v3 Coyote intake manifold won't bolt up to GT350 heads, you'll need a 2011-14 manifold

 

[obgod3]

Ok so Im more a bike guy than anything these days so educate me, why is DI a problem?

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Ok so Im more a bike guy than anything these days so educate me, why is DI a problem?

No fuel hitting the valves to clean them.

 

[wireeater]

Ok so Im more a bike guy than anything these days so educate me, why is DI a problem?

Right now the fuel is sprayed on top of your engine above the intake valves. Direct injectection is lower and actually injects fuel directly into your cylinders, thus no longer pushing fuel over the valves. Gases have detergents in them to help clean valves (carbon build up). Those things are pretty much useless if the fuel is no longer hitting the valves.

My last car (15 WRX) was DI. They didn't use port injection with it like they used on the FA in the BRZ/FRS (direct injection + port injection). The problem with straight DI is the fuel is no longer washed over your valves which eventually causes carbon build up in them which eventually can cause some loss of HP or even causing the valves to stick or not seal properly.

Cars with a lot of oil blow by makes it even worse because it accelerates the buildup.

I had mine walnut blasted @45k miles, they weren't too bad. I removed the EGR before doing it to help assist in blowing the dirty exhaust gases back into the intake manifold. I also installed a direct port water/meth kit that spray above each valve intake which clearly was for power but it also aided and keeping the valves clean. It's basically like a steam cleaner with the water vapors.

 

[golfstang]

On the DI note, I thought we had found out Ford wasn't having issues? Didn't they break open an F 150 motor with six figure miles and reveal it had only lost 1/2 hp?

Even if its no problem, I redline my ecoboost everyday for preventative reasons...

 

[obgod3]

Interesting, seems the manufacturers would have a solution for the DI Valve issue. Again its interesting.

 

[Ultimateone]

I had a BMW 135i, a car that you must walnut blast every 40-50k miles... it's amazing how gunked up it would get.

 

[BmacIL]

Interesting, seems the manufacturers would have a solution for the DI Valve issue. Again its interesting.

They do, it's called PFI-DI. The carbon build-up can be lessened through calibration, but not eliminated on purely DI engines.

Sponsored