Q&A with Dave Pericak

[S550Boss]

That's all good stuff, but the issues are much more basic than that. Things like the stamped shift fork and nylon bushings.
The bad history of this transmission is indisputable. A new transmission was specified with the best of intentions, however the selection of this model (which also failed in the truck it was designed for) was a huge mistake - especially when Getrag had so many other models.
But the engineering was also shoddy and rushed - things like the pins falling out or breaking is ridiculous. So it worked for a few people, broke in many other cases, Ford Service acted like asses in many cases, and we've seem improvement in it since then.
The Coyote was Ford at it's best, the MT82 was Ford at it's worst.
We want exact details of the changes made to the MT82 for 2015, and testing details. Like this: [ame]

Sponsored

 

[S550Boss]

In my opinion, I still remain unconvinced about the value for the money vs long-term reliability at this stage of general development, given reports of carbon build-up on valves and the high-pressure delivery system on other vehicles using this now. The 2014 Corvette was a notable exception where the engineers discussed measures they were taking to deal with the build-up situation (improved air/oil separation along with the better PCV).

That was an engineering problem in limited situations 10 or 15 years ago, not today. "Measures" are a well-known science, and the engineering is well understood and easily implemented. The LT1 and the Coyote engines don't even have to work very hard to make the power they do. D.I. is easy there.

The D.I. EcoBoost engines have a a far tougher environment internally and it's been addressed and resolved there, as well as in technically corresponding engines from Audi, BMW, and GM.

The lack of D.I. in the Coyote is purely a cost statement, as well as a long-term strategy statement. All we're getting are a couple of easy to make and cheap to make changes to the basic engine. And I suspect the sole goal was to improve torque, which the F-150 needs more of versus the competition. So something in the budget didn't justify it for the F-150, so it's not here in the hand-me-down Mustang Coyote either. Given that the F-150 has far larger "fish to fry", this is not a surprise. Considering the new emissions and economy standards coming in a few more years, along with the entirely new gen transmissions, perhaps it'll be done then - although the transmissions alone will provide a nice bump up.

But it is disappointing for Mustang enthusiasts. D.I. is one of those technologies which literally have it all - emissions, mileage, torque, drivability. The LT1 Corvette is an incredible engine to experience - you all should somehow find a way to try one out, even if it's just the lower-po version in their truck. D.I. is responsible for the terrific increase in HP and torque in the LT1, and in the LT4 it's inseparable.

So we loose out here, and in 2016 when the new Camaro shows up it will have D.I. across the board along with modern and strong transmissions on it's V-8 engines (the TR6070 and the new 8-speed auto). We'll have to wait and see if there will be another performance play for the Mustang performance engine and transmissions in 2016 or so.

But again we need to keep all this in perspective. There was a fixed amount of money in the S550 development budget... even if they did manage to request a few extra bucks above that for the front suspension. They started with the S197, evolved that (it's not "all new" even if it doesn't share any existing parts, because it started with the S197 CAD/CAM). It's an increment. The Coyote and the 3.7 got minimal evolution. The new 2.3 was necessary for worldwide sales (which in turn will yield more development money for the base car in the longer run). The IRS was necessary to get the car out of the stone age and to get dynamics to the point expected in this century. Where money was spent modifying the S197, it was money well spent. Some weight loss is perhaps happening, but not much because of the basic limitations of the platform and market. So there was limited money, there was only so much that could be done, and it only paid for an evolved S197 platform and 1 new engine (for now) and suspension. We should be glad for what we are getting... especially because the sales have been so poor over the past few years (74k units sold last year, lousy). It's the Mustangs' name and it's value to Ford that got the money that was spent. Now it has to sell better, and sell worldwide, and bring in better profits. There is certainly a Mustang product plan inside Ford that specifies what it's profit goals are worldwide, and a longer term plan that spells out future spending if that profit is made. Great success there, not average but well above-average, is the only thing that is going to justify any idea of doing a truly all-new platform at some point 8-10 years out. Otherwise it will just be another evolution, another increment, although given the mileage standards then it will have to be an even greater one in weight loss and if that is not possible then there will be more engine technology required and perhaps even smaller engines and a hybrid to meet CAFE and the tightening emission standards of the future.

 

[Tony Alonso]

That was an engineering problem in limited situations 10 or 15 years ago, not today. "Measures" are a well-known science, and the engineering is well understood and easily implemented. The LT1 and the Coyote engines don't even have to work very hard to make the power they do. D.I. is easy there.

The D.I. EcoBoost engines have a a far tougher environment internally and it's been addressed and resolved there, as well as in technically corresponding engines from Audi, BMW, and GM.

The LT1 is the one exception, based on my awareness of what has been shared in the press. I know enthusiast forums should be take with a grain of salt, there are a multitude of posts out there for the European manufacturers that have been generated in the last few years.

The lack of D.I. in the Coyote is purely a cost statement, as well as a long-term strategy statement. All we're getting are a couple of easy to make and cheap to make changes to the basic engine. And I suspect the sole goal was to improve torque, which the F-150 needs more of versus the competition. So something in the budget didn't justify it for the F-150, so it's not here in the hand-me-down Mustang Coyote either. Given that the F-150 has far larger "fish to fry", this is not a surprise. Considering the new emissions and economy standards coming in a few more years, along with the entirely new gen transmissions, perhaps it'll be done then - although the transmissions alone will provide a nice bump up.

Given the amortization over the truck line, this sounds plausible. I am a bigger fan of more low-to-midrange torque for around-town driving. Other people might prefer the top-end for track work or drag racing, of course. Long-term durability is still a question, although various sources quote many engineering hours on the LT1 development. so hopefully this really would have been addressed.

But it is disappointing for Mustang enthusiasts. D.I. is one of those technologies which literally have it all - emissions, mileage, torque, drivability. The LT1 Corvette is an incredible engine to experience - you all should somehow find a way to try one out, even if it's just the lower-po version in their truck. D.I. is responsible for the terrific increase in HP and torque in the LT1, and in the LT4 it's inseparable.

As mentioned above, the new Vette engine is one I personally think is a great application of multiple technologies, DI included.

So we loose out here, and in 2016 when the new Camaro shows up it will have D.I. across the board along with modern and strong transmissions on it's V-8 engines (the TR6070 and the new 8-speed auto). We'll have to wait and see if there will be another performance play for the Mustang performance engine and transmissions in 2016 or so.

Here's to hoping...

But again we need to keep all this in perspective. There was a fixed amount of money in the S550 development budget... even if they did manage to request a few extra bucks above that for the front suspension. They started with the S197, evolved that (it's not "all new" even if it doesn't share any existing parts, because it started with the S197 CAD/CAM). It's an increment. The Coyote and the 3.7 got minimal evolution. The new 2.3 was necessary for worldwide sales (which in turn will yield more development money for the base car in the longer run). The IRS was necessary to get the car out of the stone age and to get dynamics to the point expected in this century. Where money was spent modifying the S197, it was money well spent. Some weight loss is perhaps happening, but not much because of the basic limitations of the platform and market. So there was limited money, there was only so much that could be done, and it only paid for an evolved S197 platform and 1 new engine (for now) and suspension. We should be glad for what we are getting... especially because the sales have been so poor over the past few years (74k units sold last year, lousy). It's the Mustangs' name and it's value to Ford that got the money that was spent. Now it has to sell better, and sell worldwide, and bring in better profits. There is certainly a Mustang product plan inside Ford that specifies what it's profit goals are worldwide, and a longer term plan that spells out future spending if that profit is made. Great success there, not average but well above-average, is the only thing that is going to justify any idea of doing a truly all-new platform at some point 8-10 years out. Otherwise it will just be another evolution, another increment, although given the mileage standards then it will have to be an even greater one in weight loss and if that is not possible then there will be more engine technology required and perhaps even smaller engines and a hybrid to meet CAFE and the tightening emission standards of the future.

If I was a product planner, I likely would done something similar - platform evolution, suspension, engine to meet the potential new customer base. I imagine this was an expensive program for the volumes, but "brand halo" is definitely a factor, especially outside North America.

 

[S550Boss]

Yes, it's going to be very interesting to see what this budget was, if we ever find out (we heard the rough numbers for SN95 and S197). But this time I doubt it'll be revealed to the press. Maybe it will be in some investor materials somewhere.

 

[Trackaholic]

From what I recall, Ford often releases a new car with carryover engines (at least for the mustang). I expect that there will be updated engines in a couple years.

-T

 

[Taneras]

Yes, it's going to be very interesting to see what this budget was, if we ever find out (we heard the rough numbers for SN95 and S197). But this time I doubt it'll be revealed to the press. Maybe it will be in some investor materials somewhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that due to a low budget due to low sales numbers that we're pretty much writing off the 2015 Mustang as a car that's going to be, to some degree be it minor or major, inferior to the 2016 Camaros?

DI, better transmission, a complete new platform all sound amazing, how will an evolution of the S197 compare? Obviously its hard to say until both come out, but as of now it's sounding pretty bleak.

I'm a mustang fan, but if a different model passes the eye test and is superior to some degree I'm going to think hard on what my purchase will be.

 

[Colleton]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that due to a low budget due to low sales numbers that we're pretty much writing off the 2015 Mustang as a car that's going to be, to some degree be it minor or major, inferior to the 2016 Camaros?

DI, better transmission, a complete new platform all sound amazing, how will an evolution of the S197 compare? Obviously its hard to say until both come out, but as of now it's sounding pretty bleak.

I'm a mustang fan, but if a different model passes the eye test and is superior to some degree I'm going to think hard on what my purchase will be.

Shut it all down, Ford. The new Mustang has been written off as inferior. lol, Jesus...

 

[Taneras]

Shut it all down, Ford. The new Mustang has been written off as inferior. lol, Jesus...

Or you could, you know, read and respond to what I actually said...

I never said shut it all down. I'm sure the 2015 Mustang will sell just fine and will keep the brand going, but is it what *I* want to buy? I like bang for my buck and while I'm brand loyal if there's a pretty good deal else where I'm going to consider it.

 

[Colleton]

You took casual conversation on a forum as evidence of a "low budget" for development of the '15 Mustang. Same for calling the S550 an "evolution" of the S197 when Ford is on record saying that it is brand new.

You purposefully distorted facts to suit the message you wanted to convey. Nothing left to do on my part buy laugh, as a straight response only legitimizes your distortions.

How's that?

 

[Taneras]

You took casual conversation on a forum as evidence of a "low budget" for development of the '15 Mustang. Same for calling the S550 an "evolution" of the S197 when Ford is on record saying that it is brand new.

You purposefully distorted facts to suit the message you wanted to convey. Nothing left to do on my part buy laugh, as a straight response only legitimizes your distortions.

How's that?

Horribly off base.

I quoted, and was talking to, S550Boss. He stated the Mustang was an evolution, and he stated what the Alpha platform Camaro was going to have. I was asking him, based on what he said, how he thought both would compare when they were both in production form and ready to be sold.

I'm not sure where you fit in, and I'm not sure where my "purposefully distorting facts" came in when I was simplying asking S550Boss about his own comments.

If anyone's distorting anything here it was you with my original message suggesting that I was saying Ford needs to halt production on the mustang.

 

[GTsquid]

There's a few people that want to believe what they want to believe. Guys that keep perpetuating this "evolution" of the S197 without a shred of evidence. When Ford has said everything down to the floorpan is different. The entire platform designed around IRS which necessitated new front suspension too. Different dimensions, etc. You can sail around the world and some people will still be convinced the world is flat, what can you do?

Just for the record, for guys who aren't new to this forum, he has been repeating this since day one and I've still yet to hear anything other than "it looks the same" as proof that is simply an evolution.

 

[Grimace427]

How about instead of straying further off track with this back and forth we try to remain optimistic and focus on actual facts and information. There is still a lot that hasn't been revealed and it would be better suited to everyone on this forum to hold judgement and conclusions until move tangible info becomes available.

 

[Colleton]

How about instead of straying further off track with this back and forth we try to remain optimistic and focus on actual facts and information. There is still a lot that hasn't been revealed and it would be better suited to everyone on this forum to hold judgement and conclusions until move tangible info becomes available.

Sounds good to me. Sorry for the sidetrack.

 

[Taneras]

Don't get we wrong I'm optimistic as well, I was just wondering S550Boss's thoughts on how these cars would compare. Unless there are some nasty surprises with the 2015 mustang I see myself getting a GTPP. Ill be sad getting rid of my 13 GT though :(

 

[Jarstang]

Let me chime in here since I feel it behooves me to say this. Earlier last year we were told by someone we deem to be very trustworthy that the new Mustang actually gained a little weight, which of course conflicts with the other info just posted.

Now, before you get too worked up, keep in mind this was last year before all production parts were completely finalized let alone available for weighing; you can be sure Ford has been hard at work. What this should tell you is that many people have been guessing at a moving target. It should also tell you that any potential weight loss would not be monumental. If you are still expecting 200+ pounds trim for trim, you may end up disappointed. Take comfort that whichever way the scale tips, we have been told emphatically by people who have driven the car that the driving dynamics are vastly improved.

Sponsored