Thanks for sharing this Travis! I had heard that Ford was not going to do the retro Mustang anymore, and this is an interesting design......I haven't decided if I really really like it, or really really hate it.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ** > NMA Blog: 2015 Mustang… Probe Revisited? <http://blog.motorists.org> > > <http://fusion.google.com/add?source=atgs&feedurl=http://feeds.feedburner.com/motoristsblog> > ------------------------------ > > 2015 Mustang… Probe > Revisited?<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/motoristsblog/~3/SqbAHVfwko4/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email> > > Posted: 15 Apr 2013 07:46 AM PDT > > *[image: 2015 Mustang... Probe Revisited?] > By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist* > > Mustang people will recall the hollow point bullet that was dodged back in > the early ’90s when Ford* almost* ruined the iconic RWD American pony > car. By turning it into an import-style *FWD* car. That car, by the grace > of Elvis, ended up being sold as *another* car — the Probe — and in 1994, > Ford brought out a new Mustang that harkened back (stylistically) to the > original ’64 Mustang — and which was based on the same solid axle/RWD > layout. But Ford management had given serious thought to slotting in the > the Probe as the “new” Mustang. > > Sanity prevailed. > > But apparently, management is thinking along those lines again. > > There is a rumor floating around that the 2015 Mustang will be based on a > “global platform.” What that means (if true) is that the ’15 Mustang would > be made for the *global* market — not the *US* market. And that could > mean, probably *will* mean, FWD — and four cylinders. With maybe a > transversely mounted, turbocharged (“EcoBoost”) V-6 as the optional > powerplant. Maybe teamed up with *AWD*. > > But not *RWD*. > > Here’s how come: > > RWD platforms and V-8 engines are only mass-market viable in the US > market. In *Europe*, chiefly because gas costs about $10 a gallon, > RWD/V-8 cars are *exotic* cars — and for the rich only. The only > conceivable way a Mustang could make it in Europe as other than a > high-dollar/low-production exotic would be if it got smaller, lighter — and > much more fuel-efficient. The easiest, most cost-effective way to do that > would be to eliminate the separate rear axle assembly — and change the > layout to FWD. > > Then they could also get rid of the V-8 and replace it with a six — and > make a small four the standard engine. Problem solved. > > Consider: > > The current (2013) V-6 Mustang rates 19 city, 31 highway — *23* MPG, > average. The V-8 GT comes in at 18 city, 25 highway — 20 average. That > won’t cut it for the *US* market — which three calendar years from now > and just two model years from now (2016) will require all new cars to * > average* 35.5 MPG or be saddled with onerous “gas guzzler” fines that > will be passed on to the buyer. Already, even higher-end brands are > divesting themselves of six cylinder engines, slotting in smaller — more > fuel sippy — fours in their place. V-8s are rapidly going the way of the > Dodo. As 2016 gets closer, this shift will become more and more obvious as > more and more cars get shorn of engines over 3 liters and with more than > four pistons under their hoods. > > The current Mustang’s mileage will have to be improved by something on the > order of 50 percent just to make the 2016 CAFE cut. And even that won’t cut > it in *Europe* — where 35.5 MPG is *mediocre*. > > For some perspective on what sells in Europe, consider a car like the > Euro-spec VW Jetta, which is sold with a 1.6 liter diesel not available in > the US. It manages 50-plus MPG (60 on the highway) as good or better than > the best *hybrids* deliver on this side of the pond. To match that > at-the-pump performance, the next Mustang’s mileage would have to > *double*relative to the current car’s mileage. > > But it’s not just European realities that cast a pall over the future of a > RWD (and V-8 powered) Mustang for 2015. Forget the gas guzzler taxes. > People over *here* are freaked out about the cost of* gas*. > > The current Mustang has a fairly small (for a car of this type) 16 gallon > fuel tank. At current prices — about $3.80 nationally — it takes about $60 > to fuel one up. What happens when — not if — gas prices climb to $5 a > gallon? Whether because of inflation or oil shortages or “save the Earth” > taxes on gas — the reasons why don’t matter. What does matter is that fewer > and fewer people can afford to spend $300 a month on gas (and that’s at > current prices) on top of a $400 a month car payment. On top of $100/month > for mandatory insurance… . > > You can rest assured Ford is thinking hard about all this. > > Another thing Ford is probably thinking about is changing demographics. > The crowd that buys Mustangs — and other large, RWD muscle coupes — is > mostly an *older* crowd. Gen X, Boomers. > > The crowd Ford knows is the future (Millennials ) is a crowd that grew up > with — and so which is more comfortable with — smaller, lighter, FWD cars. > As kids, they drove Corollas and Civics — not two-ton RWD V-8 muscle cars. > If Ford (and GM and Dodge) continue with the RWD/V-8 layout, they may find > themselves stuck with an aging — and not *growing* — buyer demographic. > > These factors — the need to expand the next Mustang’s market beyond the > borders of the US, the pressure to meet 35.5 MPG *average* CAFE and > changing buyer demographics — could very well lead to the end of the > Mustang as we have known it. And to a new kind of Mustang as we might have > known it back in ’94. > > At minimum, a four-cylinder turbo’d (“Ecoboosted,” in Ford-speak) base > model 2015 Mustang is very likely. That by itself might not be a bad thing. > Mustang people will recall that during the ’80s and into the early ’90s, > the base Mustang came with a four cylinder engine. If Ford sold say eight > four cylinder, (and 36 MPG) Mustangs for every two 28 MPG V-8 GTs, the CAFE > numbers would balance out. > > But, a problem: The ’80s-early ’90s era Mustang was a much lighter car > that could get away with being both four cylinder-powered *and* RWD. A > 1990 LX with the four weighed 2,827 lbs. The current (2013) base V-6 > Mustang weighs *3,501 lbs.* and is probably much too heavy to be powered > by a four cylinder engine. > > To be four-cylinder-viable, the 2015 Mustang will need to be much lighter > — on the order of 300-500 pounds lighter. Obvious solution? *Get rid of > the rear axle assembly* — and make the car FWD. Then the four could > possibly work. And a turbo-Ecoboosted V-6 could maintain the necessary > performance level for the GT model while also achieving the necessary CAFE > numbers. > > But will this car — a euro-import style FWD/AWD car with no V-8 option — > be a *Mustang*? Would such a car sell to Millenials? > > Or just turn off Gen Xers and Boomers? > > In about 24 months from now, we’ll find out… . > > Comments? > > www.epautos.com > > *Are You A NMA Member?* If not, read about *the > benefits<http://www.motorists.org/memberbenefits/> > * and then *join! <https://www.motorists.org/join/>* > > > > 2015 Mustang… Probe > Revisited?<http://blog.motorists.org/2015-mustang-probe-revisited/> > > Further Reading: > > - Goodbye, V-8s – This Time, Maybe For > Good<http://blog.motorists.org/goodbye-v8-for-good/> > - CAFE Spells RIP For > Trucks?<http://blog.motorists.org/cafe-spells-rip-for-trucks/> > - Why The 2009 Camaro Is > Doomed<http://blog.motorists.org/why-the-2009-camaro-is-doomed/> > - If We Really Wanted To Save > Gas…<http://blog.motorists.org/if-we-really-wanted-to-save-gas/> > - 50 MPG Then – and Now<http://blog.motorists.org/50-mpg-then-and-now/> > > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/motoristsblog?a=SqbAHVfwko4:KgBV0O1L6Pk:yIl2AUoC8zA> > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/motoristsblog?a=SqbAHVfwko4:KgBV0O1L6Pk:gIN9vFwOqvQ> > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/motoristsblog?a=SqbAHVfwko4:KgBV0O1L6Pk:D7DqB2pKExk> > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/motoristsblog?a=SqbAHVfwko4:KgBV0O1L6Pk:V_sGLiPBpWU> > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/motoristsblog?a=SqbAHVfwko4:KgBV0O1L6Pk:F7zBnMyn0Lo> > > Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, > Chicago IL USA 60610 > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
