I like the sounds of cleaning implements. I even like them in a Mustang. I just don’t like them associated with the sounds of a Civic.

Not that I’d buy one anyway.

A turbo-4cyl Mustang for $2k less than the V6 model might work, provided no one gets rattled about the Mustang Image being jarred by the presence of that engine straining itself to pull about 3500lbs of stylish metal around. And I bet the actual horsepower of that engine might be around 260-275 when it finally hits the engine bay.

As for the Camaro, I doubt anyone wants to be reminded of the atrocious lump of metal known as the “Iron Duke”.

I think Ford is actually on the right track with the upcoming engine line. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the existing 4L V6 costs less to make than a small-displacement turbocharged V6, and perhaps even a turbo four. It offers strong torque, reasonable MPG, and a great sound. I don’t believe Mustang buyers (who already sacrifice a fair bit of practicality relative to alternatives in this price range) would accept losing all of that for a few more miles of range.

The relationship between a larger turbo V6 and the V8 will probably mirror that which is already occurring in Australia with the Ford Falcon. The V8 is a bit of a paper tiger; while it has superficially higher power numbers, the V6 is actually faster because of less weight and a superior torque curve. And it makes better MPG figures. As a result, Ford expects far more buyers to choose the V6.

A Mustang is supposed to be an affordable distinctly American rear-wheel drive coupe with a V8 at its core and with a lesser secretary’s compromise model for the masses. To tinker with that formula is to undermine decades of market building.

The Mustang II was a mistake, one not to be repeated. Ford could (sorta) get away with that during the 1970’s when Detroit was still the Big 3 (Chevy sold a lot of Vegas, but it was a bad product that harmed their long-term brand equity, nonetheless.) Today, Ford has no leeway to foul things up like this.

In any case, the Mustang nameplate has already been beaten to death. It is so strongly associated with V8’s that the market will probably not accept a four-cylinder version as anything more than a rental version of the “real” car, turbo or not. Nobody looks at a Mustang and thinks “fuel saver.”

If Ford wants to sell a turbo 4 sporty car, then it needs to be in a different form. Base it on the Fusion or Focus, not the Mustang.

Six cylinder Mustangs have been a big part of the sales mix forever. Even today the V-6 Mustang slightly outsells the V-8.

The majority of Mustang buyers over the years have wanted a sporty, fun two door which is cheap to buy and cheap to run. Nothing wrong with that.

Mustang should be V8 only. Forever.

Yi ha.

“The last time Ford offered them not many people opted for them.”

Times they are a changing. Remember the Mustang II? That dressed up Pinto sold like gangbusters in the late 70s.

And no more appropriate place or time than now.

The bad deal is that the old SVO was too little pushing too much. The lack of torque caused one to buzz the crap out of the package to even budge the older pony.

Now? I can’t see how a Lb. has changed with time. Maybe they could wrench mo torque out of the mill but alas, that is a time honoured conundrum of small engines . N/a and pressurized alike.

Maybe a Buick S/C 3800 copycat?

Not gonna do much for the brand though…

Also when I had my Grand National it returned 25-30mpg on the freeway. But then again so does my V8, 400hp LS2 engine when I drive it outside of the city.

I went from six to eight cylinders, gained fuel economy improvements in the city where I do 99% of my driving and gave up nothing on the freeway.

Pontiac Solstice GXP, Saturn Sky Red Line. There ya go.

In the guzzling USA, that is probably true at the moment. However, if you head on over to Europe, you’ll see several 4-cylinder Mercedes C-class and E-class offerings with a turbo four diesel. If you extend “turbo” to also include supercharged engines, you’ll see C, E, CLK, and SLK offerings. The previous generation C230 Kompressor sold here; it was a zippy enough engine and could easily see 30 MPG on the highway.

If you stretch RWD to be AWD, then Audi/VW has several items for sale.

Rolling hills and highway garner fantastic gas mileage in the WRX (taller gears than the STi by the way…yes, the WRX 5th is slightly taller than STi 6th.) Naturally aspirated cars just don’t get the same sort of fuel consumption rules.

It’s actually not that easy and takes a lot of focus and concentration to get good gas mileage in the turbo4 vehicles (Evo, WRX/STi, Speed3, etc). But actually paying attention to one’s driving style is key.

I’ve said it before and I’ll harp on it again now: Adding a real-time and long-term fuel-consumption display to vehicles would make a huge dent in folks’ habits just because most are not willing, not patient enough, or not analytical enough in their approach to driving (i.e. zombies!) to figure it out on their own. Why do you think Prius drivers all get horrible gas mileage at first, then claim “It got a lot better once I learned how to drive it!” It has a computer telling them that what they are doing in traffic makes for crappy gas mileage.

If the government really wanted to nanny-state/legislate something useful regarding consumption into existence, the FCD (fuel consumption display) would be it. :)

To think that Ford will reutrn to what was a obvious course of future developement in the early 1980s speaks volumes of how Ford simply dropped the ball for the sake of being “CHEAP” and short-sighted.

One would think that there was a some kind of giagantic easy to exploit petroleum find in the mid to late 1980s that allowed the domestics to forget all about petro being a limited finite resource that would only get more and more expensive in the future.

Once again Ford will be faced with the “V8″ dilemma regarding the Mustang and its core fans. If a Mustang is only “good” (as a performance vehicle) with a v8 under the hood than Ford might as well pull the plug on any future Mustang developement.

Look fellas, like it or not America is being forced to join the party that the rest of the world has be dancing at for the last 40 years, let me correct that and say forever. The Altar of wasteful excess is collapsing as we sit here and think about filling up our V8 powered personal transportation devices! Burning extra gas for the sake of “fuck it” aint gonna cut it for the vast majority of us out here in the USA.
My wife will not lets me turn-off the cable service to fuel a hotrod every weekend so I MUST COMPROMISE if I wish to enjoy driving in the future. A lighter car with a smaller engine is just what the doctor perscribed!

And if a turbo 4 can put out over 300hp and 300ft lbs + you gotta admit that it does have the MUSCLE! It is just in a smaller, lighter package.

I’m waiting for the next gen V8s from Ford with some of the techy goodies (direct injection) of the EcoBoost family.

Combined with the fact that the Mustang (cough, Torino) is a gigantic yacht (not an Import-wannabe) this new SVO will tank just like the old one did.

The supercharged Lotus Exige comes closest.

… you could also get a slightly-used Mazdaspeed Miata