Will the v8s no longer be in Mustangs with the introduction of the Ford GT ?

[ForTehNguyen]

many turbo cars dont make the mpg that the stickers claim. Turbos even more susceptible to driving style than NA. Ecoboost 3.5 in the F150 making mpg way lower than the sticker and the V8s its suppose to replace. Turbos arent a cure all, if turbos were so good why isnt every car turboed? If this keeps going on and EPA redecides to rerate turbo engines for real world mpg its really going to screw over manufacturers CAFE compliance.

Sponsored

 

[1320']

many turbo cars dont make the mpg that the stickers claim. Turbos even more susceptible to driving style than NA. Ecoboost 3.5 in the F150 making mpg way lower than the sticker and the V8s its suppose to replace. Turbos arent a cure all, if turbos were so good why isnt every car turboed? If this keeps going on and EPA redecides to rerate turbo engines for real world mpg its really going to screw over manufacturers CAFE compliance.

Have you seen how many turbo cars are actually out there?

 

[Blk2015GT]

many turbo cars dont make the mpg that the stickers claim. Turbos even more susceptible to driving style than NA. Ecoboost 3.5 in the F150 making mpg way lower than the sticker and the V8s its suppose to replace. Turbos arent a cure all, if turbos were so good why isnt every car turboed? If this keeps going on and EPA redecides to rerate turbo engines for real world mpg its really going to screw over manufacturers CAFE compliance.

Yeh but were talking CAFE requirements. If the vehicle doesnt meet it in the fleet average then further analysis will be irrelevant what real world use shows as the car wont even be built in that configuration to begin with.

Right now current date gas engine technology small turbo engines are getting better mpg than their V8 counterparts being replaced by their ratings (again beyond that, eh, real world usage varies but you have to get it to work in your lineup first). If there is something better before the clamps tighten in the next 5-10 years then great.

Look at the M3, real world usage stats. The turbo in the 15-16 is getting a few mpg better avg than the V8 did and didnt even lose a step; still in the same 3.9-4.1 0-60 window. http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/m3

 

[timd38]

Based on how slow the Ford GT is at Daytona this weekend, maybe it needs a V8.

 

[ForTehNguyen]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/06/17/aaa-study-real-world-fuel-economy/

Although the numbers typically favor motorists, inaccurate information can still hurt carmakers and consumers. Gas mileage is a key factor for many car buyers. Depending on the current cost of fuel, it might be the most important shopping criteria. So underestimated fuel-economy numbers could lead consumers to bypass vehicles they would have otherwise considered. EPA officials did not return a request for comment Tuesday.

Owners of vehicles with diesel engines and manual transmissions appeared to be the biggest beneficiaries of discrepancies between estimated and actual fuel economy. Diesel owners reported 20-percent higher fuel economy than EPA ratings. Owners with cars equipped with manual transmissions enjoyed 17-percent higher real-world results.

Owners with turbocharged engines, on the other hand, were the biggest losers. Owners of turbocharged V6 engines reported fuel economy 9-percent lower than estimates, and owners of turbocharged four-cylinder engines reported fuel economy that was 4-percent lower than expected.

"If you just think about how those cars drive, a diesel has a ton of torque down low, so small throttle changes will get an immediate response," Nielsen told Autoblog. "And a turbo, conversely, does need to spool up. I can't help but wonder what role driving habits play in that."

 

[Blk2015GT]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/06/17/aaa-study-real-world-fuel-economy/

An absolute gross oversimplification of the issue for the every man. The testing is done uniformly to get an accurate comparison between vehicles; it's only a ROUGH estimate of what you should see real world in real driving conditions.

You're not going to do much "spirited" driving in a Prius winding out a big engine causing your mpg to drop. But of course the article doesnt mention what type of car those "8 in 10 people beat the EPA estimates" is driving. 4-5 in 10 are probably tiny sub 250hp 4 bangers and small V6s. A bit harder to gauge when you have a real sports car and do some spirited driving.

I dont get ANYWHERE NEAR the advertised mpg on my GT (sticker says 19mpg mixed) averaging 13.1mpg over it's life, and it's not a turbo so.....

 

[ForTehNguyen]

37000 records and 8400 vehicles in this sample set vs your 1

If turbos were the magic bullet that solves everything, all cars would be turboed. They have their own set of tradeoffs.

 

[Blk2015GT]

37000 records and 8400 vehicles in this sample set vs your 1

Again, what cars? What engines? How far over EPA mpg? (BIG difference between .5mpg and 5mpg) What age people? (older people generally less of a lead foot)

No details=irrelevant drivel

Further they mention 4% below EPA for 4 banger turbo and 9% for V6 turbo. So say 30mpg you're talking what? 1.5-2.5mpg? Wow end of the world earth shattering differences, couldn't possibly be driver/driving condition variance.

In conducting its analysis, AAA engineers identified a list of vehicles that were frequently reported as failing to achieve the EPA's mileage rating. Many of the Hyundai and Kia models that carried exaggerated fuel-economy estimates, since revised downward, were identified in the trend information. AAA engineers say three additional vehicles -- a 2014 full-size pickup, a 2014 large sedan and a 2012 medium-sized sedan -- also were flagged as frequently falling short of estimates.

But when the engineers conducted further tests on those unnamed models, they found the vehicles' fuel economy met EPA estimates. With no apparent mechanical shortcomings, they focused on driver behavior as a possible culprit for the poor numbers.

Fundamentally, consumers don't always understand that their driving habits play as large a role in fuel economy as vehicle shortcomings. AAA says its study found driving behavior and environmental conditions, rather than car troubles, are "likely responsible" for most fuel-economy variances.

 

[timd38]

All I can say is that my V8 Corvette gets advertised mileage, and my Ecoboost Escape does not. One data point means nothing, because of this, I did not consider 2.3L Mustang.

 

[347CobraII]

The problem isn't that people don't want V8 cars, its the CAFE restrictions upcoming that are heavier than ever.

These numbers are just for cars the size of the Mustang (50sq ft and above car size)

Left number is CAFE mpg, right is EPA window sticker mpg.

2015 30 23
2016 31 24
2017 33 25
2018 34 26
2019 35 26
2020 36 27
2021 38 28
2022 40 30
2023 42 31
2024 44 33
2025 46 34


That's a pretty tall order as you can see vs current in this past year with our current cars- 30 fleet avg vs 46 in only 9 years from now. That's a pretty huge jump if you think how many cars even can hit 46mpg now let along a fleet average.

You're not going to be able to hit a fleet average 46mpg with a 16/25mpg Coyote. It will drag the fleet average too low unless they started doing cylinder deactivation like GM does (and I don't know how the EPA counts that)

A single turbo V6 Ecoboost could be a good substitute for a 450-500hp or so GT; and a twin turbo setup like the Ford GT for the specialized models putting out 600hp+

There many people who think CAFE,EPA,CARB are wanting to get rid of V8's. Truth is they don't care if it's V16, V12, V8, V6, V4, V2, I6, I4, 1 cyl or engine displacement just as long as they can meet fuel mileage and emission requirements

 

[jtmat]

Good luck in about 9 years from now, they may simply not exist except in exotics/$100k+ models with low volume which keeps the fleet average down. They would need to formulate a V8 with a window sticker avg mpg of 34 while keeping their fleet of passenger car average over 46mpg

The current 4 cyl Ecoboost Mustang only averages 26 on the sticker (22/31), and V6 19/28 averaging 22, for some idea of how far they need to come in only 9 years.

That is about right... my eco is hitting 28 right now (since I've had it... now with 10,000 miles) and I about lean into it whenever I drive it.

 

[Kahboom]

Either people don't know or care that critical state fuel injectors which can get 50+mpg in a v8 have been testing for years. Company's won't switch for no reason if they can sell a cheaper product and take the easy way out. Another reason the Volkswagen XL1 has been out since 2002 and gets 268mpg and has never hit the US because of corporate greed. That's why CAFE rating is a slow achievable ramp scale to make the most off people and use the resources we have fuel wise to ramp up the price of gas when better fuel economy goes up. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Transonic_Combusion_--_TSCi_Technology

 

[ForTehNguyen]

2-3 mpg is a pretty big deal if the EPA decides to rerate the testing to be more inline with real world like they did back around 2007. Can you imagine how badly that would screw over companies CAFE compliance and their overall product strategy. This turbo trend is being sold as better fuel efficiency and its doing a lowsy job.

Again if turbos were truly better why isnt every car turboed by now? Nothing revolutionary happened with turbos, theyve been around forever. Its pure regulations, not consumers, that are pushing it and its ruining consumer choice. Good numbers on the test bench but real world very questionable unless driven even more perfectly than NA. The regs will kill big NA engines that are fun to drive, great sound, instant throttle response and replacing them with turbo lag, lowsy sound, inconsistent throttle, increased complexity, questionable mpg. Companies like Porsche and Ferrari would not be turboing all their 911s/Boxster/Cayman and the 488 if it werent for regs. Very sad that companies cant build the engine they want. Cars are going to get neutered, especially sportscars.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a24691/ferrari-engineers-dont-like-turbocharging/

 

[Blue Horse]

2-3 mpg is a pretty big deal if the EPA decides to rerate the testing to be more inline with real world like they did back around 2007. Can you imagine how badly that would screw over companies CAFE compliance and their overall product strategy. This turbo trend is being sold as better fuel efficiency and its doing a lowsy job.

Again if turbos were truly better why isnt every car turboed by now? Nothing revolutionary happened with turbos, theyve been around forever. Its pure regulations, not consumers, that are pushing it and its ruining consumer choice. Good numbers on the test bench but real world very questionable unless driven even more perfectly than NA. The regs will kill big NA engines that are fun to drive, great sound, instant throttle response and replacing them with turbo lag, lowsy sound, inconsistent throttle, increased complexity, questionable mpg. Companies like Porsche and Ferrari would not be turboing all their 911s/Boxster/Cayman and the 488 if it werent for regs. Very sad that companies cant build the engine they want. Cars are going to get neutered, especially sportscars.
Everyone wants to think this HP V8 engine race is going to go on forever,but I lived through the last neuter of the muscle/sports car neuter 1973 came in with V8 engines 8:5:1 compression ratio and 200 HP with smog and air pumps,and in 1974 the MUSTANG had NO V8 offering,and now the Café standards are going to put the final nail into the V8, back in the day we didn't want to believe it either,it"s gonna happen and much sooner than you think.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

I bought my first Mustang, an 89 LX 5.0, brand new. Why? Because I wanted to get a V8 before they all went away, LOL.

Sponsored