Why isn't ford doing this?

[Gmxblazer]

Why doesn't ford offer a base model with a 2.0 naturally aspirated or 1.0 Eco boost? I'm not saying the driving dynamics would be better but it could offer lower entry point and less horsepower. I will be honest if my first car had been a 305hp rwd car I probably wouldn't be here today or I'd have a nasty driving record.
I know a lot of people won't admit that but I for one will. 10 years down the road when they start being real reasonably priced and kids that are new to driving are picking them up I fear for the market of used mustangs. Does anyone else agree that perhaps there should be a lower performing mustang?

Sponsored

 

[w3rkn]

Why doesn't ford offer a base model with a 2.0 naturally aspirated or 1.0 Eco boost? I'm not saying the driving dynamics would be better but it could offer lower entry point and less horsepower. I will be honest if my first car had been a 305hp rwd car I probably wouldn't be here today or I'd have a nasty driving record.
I know a lot of people won't admit that but I for one will. 10 years down the road when they start being real reasonably priced and kids that are new to driving are picking them up I fear for the market of used mustangs. Does anyone else agree that perhaps there should be a lower performing mustang?

Because the Mustang stands for something... it isn't just a car.

 

[Gmxblazer]

Because the Mustang stands for something... it isn't just a car.

Then why was it ever offered with 3.7,4.0,3.9,3.8, or 2.3 n/a. It stands for what ford wants it to be. I just don't understand why everything has to be power driven. I understand the 5.0/5.8 and 2.3 but why not have something turned down for the secretaries and newbies to driving?

 

[GTsquid]

Why doesn't ford offer a base model with a 2.0 naturally aspirated or 1.0 Eco boost? I'm not saying the driving dynamics would be better but it could offer lower entry point and less horsepower. I will be honest if my first car had been a 305hp rwd car I probably wouldn't be here today or I'd have a nasty driving record.
I know a lot of people won't admit that but I for one will. 10 years down the road when they start being real reasonably priced and kids that are new to driving are picking them up I fear for the market of used mustangs. Does anyone else agree that perhaps there should be a lower performing mustang?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. You want a lower performing Mustang so that kids who are just learning to drive won't get themselves killed or get their license suspended/revoked?

Isn't the better solution to have the parents not buy a kid who is fresh out of drivers ed a car with 420+hp if they aren't responsible or skilled enough to handle it?

Also, there are naturally aspirated smaller displacement engines in the lineup, but why does it need to be in a Mustang. It's a performance car and should stay that way. The Mustang team considered it and rejected it because it just didn't fit with the Mustang performance ethos.

How did you arrive at the 2.3-liter displacement for the EcoBoost four-cylinder?
Pericak:
We started with multiple displacements. We went as low as 1.8 liters, but that clearly was not going to cut it. Whether we could’ve made the 1.8 work, a 2.0-liter work, a 2.5—we went even higher than that. But at the end of the day we needed an engine with huge performance. Our EcoBoost engines are great performers, but this is a Mustang. We settled on the 2.3 as the best engine to do all the upgrades, the twin-scroll turbocharger, and the steel crankshaft.

From here: http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/in-depth-with-1395.html

 

[Melino]

What makes you think even if they offered the 2.0L it would be a lower entry piont than the carry over 3.7L? The Ecoboost engines are usually positioned as the upgrade.

To back you up a little, I think what you are suggesting could probably sell in Europe.... just cant see it selling in the states. There are already people crying about the 2.3.

 

[Gmxblazer]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. You want a lower performing Mustang so that kids who are just learning to drive won't get themselves killed or get their license suspended/revoked?

That is exactly what I am saying. When I am researching some of these cars I see all kinds of kids with the new 5.0 or 3.7 and I just wonder how long until that car is wrecked...

As for ford not having a car that fits it ethos, I don't know how having a low powered base model would effect any of the rest of the engines.. I am just saying there should be a lower end model so parents or teens with more money than brains.......Maybe I am posting this on the wrong website enthusiasts are always about performance for the money and less about safety on the road.:frusty:

 

[Gmxblazer]

What makes you think even if they offered the 2.0L it would be a lower entry piont than the carry over 3.7L? The Ecoboost engines are usually positioned as the upgrade.

I am referring to the 2.0 naturally aspirated engine in the focus not the Eco boost. The engine has to be less to produce than the 3.7. It could sell offer it at the premium package as well it would be a good start for volume sales. Raising the CAFE rating as well but that is not why I am proposing it.

 

[Helios1234]

It just doesn't make sense to offer the Mustang with such low power engines. The Mustang has now developed into a performance car so making it less powerful with a 1/2L base engine would simply curb its standing as Ford's halo car.

If someone just passed their driving test, they probably should be looking at Fiestas and the likes, not a big coupe. Here in the UK, the majority of insurers won't insure new drivers on these kind of cars because they'll have the reputation of being sports cars and therefore at more risk of being crashed. Even if there was a small displacement engine offered in the Mustang, they'd still see it as a risk because of what the Mustang stands for and how people, especially younger ones, are likely to drive it.

And the other argument against it is that manufacturers wouldn't take a 911 or Cayman, or any other sports car for that matter, and put a low power engine so that it sells in higher numbers. Ford has so many cars that cater to new drivers that it doesn't need the Mustang to do so. And if anything, I'd rather a small engine in a light weight Fiesta/Focus than a heavier Mustang as it'd be more nippy.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

Make a Capri or Probe, smaller than the Mustang. RWD, offer the 2.0 NA motor, 2.3T, and the 2.7TT V6. Problem solved. As long as it weighs less than 3000lbs, you'd sell a lot.

 

[Gmxblazer]

It just doesn't make sense to offer the Mustang with such low power engines. The Mustang has now developed into a performance car so making it less powerful with a 1/2L base engine would simply curb its standing as Ford's halo car.

And the other argument against it is that manufacturers wouldn't take a 911 or Cayman, or any other sports car for that matter, and put a low power engine so that it sells in higher numbers. Ford has so many cars that cater to new drivers that it doesn't need the Mustang to do so. And if anything, I'd rather a small engine in a light weight Fiesta/Focus than a heavier Mustang as it'd be more nippy.

It being nippy is the problem. Look on YouTube for 3.7 mustang modifications 1/2 the time it's some teenager. Let's face to the mustang is an affordable sports coupe. Or convertible it's not a Porsche although it may beat one on the track. The day the mustang becomes a Porsche in price it's status it will no longer be a mustang it will just be another sports car. But cookie monster I believe you are correct. I think you all are forgetting how recently mustangs were running 16's and 17's down the 1/4 mile.

 

[Gmxblazer]

Make a Capri or Probe, smaller than the Mustang. RWD, offer the 2.0 NA motor, 2.3T, and the 2.7TT V6. Problem solved. As long as it weighs less than 3000lbs, you'd sell a lot.

Agreed. I believe they need to offer something with a little less power to give young enthusiasts a status symbol without the risks involved

 

[Dirk McGurck]

Agreed. I believe they need to offer something with a little less power to give young enthusiasts a status symbol without the risks involved

I'd buy one.

 

[blackhand1001]

No, there is no need for a Naturally aspirated 4 cylinder model. Theres a huge difference between a turbo 4 cylinder and a non turbo 4 cylinder. The non turbo would be making 150 ft lbs of torque at best. Hyundai doesn't offer a non 4 cylinder turbo genesis for the same reason. If you want an NA 4 cylinder you need to downsize to something like an fr-s, miata, etc.

Not to mention all this extra NA 4 cylinder would do is push the price of the ecoboost and v8 versions even more.

 

[w3rkn]

That is exactly what I am saying. When I am researching some of these cars I see all kinds of kids with the new 5.0 or 3.7 and I just wonder how long until that car is wrecked...

As for ford not having a car that fits it ethos, I don't know how having a low powered base model would effect any of the rest of the engines.. I am just saying there should be a lower end model so parents or teens with more money than brains.......Maybe I am posting this on the wrong website enthusiasts are always about performance for the money and less about safety on the road.:frusty:

People don't design cars for children...

Plus, a child can kill themselves in ANY car. What does a Mustang have to do with anything you are talking about..?


Secondly, your question is more about parenting & teaching driver skills.. than about cars, or engine choices...

 

[Darrinm03]

Man....I wish Lamborghini would just come out with a Gallardo with a VW bug engine in it so I could afford it (not saying OP can't afford a mustang, just a little light hearted sarcasm)

Sponsored