Filed under: Car Buying, Coupes, Ford
Ford scaling back production of V8 Mustang
Prior to the introduction of the new-for-2004 Mustang, Ford sold about 70-percent of its pony cars with V6s, while the remaining 30-percent came with V8s. That figure shifted when the retro coupe went on sale in late '03 and Ford was forced to bump up the output of its V8-equipped models to keep up with demand.
Over the last few years, 52-percent of 'Stangs came with the 4.6-liter V8, but rising fuel prices and the fact that enthusiasts bought early has brought that number back down to 45-percent, so Ford will be reducing the number of 2008 Mustangs it builds with a V8.
We're sure the excessive amount of special edition models helped fuel the initial fire for the V8, and we expect the eight cylinder engine to comprise over 50-percent of sales once again when a refreshened Mustang hits the market before the end of the decade. That said, we recall that Ford's newish 3.5L V6 is suited to rear-wheel-drive, and expect that engine or a version of it, coupled with a six-speed automatic, to land in the Mustang's engine bay eventually. After all, Ford promised that the 3.5L V6 would power 1 in 5 of its models by 2010.
[Source: Automotive News – Sub. Req.]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
LMBVette 9:26AM (12/10/2007)
Does this mean there will be some special edition v6 editions now? ;-)
Reply
The Other Bob 3:36PM (12/11/2007)
There already are.
Rboyett 9:32AM (12/10/2007)
They have already done a few V6 special editions.
rich 9:30AM (12/10/2007)
im not suprised by all of this, with gas prices being what they are, and there not going down much, ever, so this is here to stay in our life time. i have a 2007 v6 mustang with the 5 speed auto, im getting 24.4 in local driving, with some route driving and alittle stop and go. but im very easy with the peddle, so im trying to see how far i can take my mpg, and checking it with the computer. i would love to see ford make the mustang about 7 inches shorter, and come-in at around 3,000 ibs. id also like to see at this weight, a 4,6,8 cyl engines used. if the 4 had close to 180 hp, that should be enough to power it, with a 6 speed auto, and 6 speed man transmission. that should get in the low 30s for highway use. maybe its time for the mustang to use the 4,6,8 like in the 70s and 80s. i want the mustang to be around for a very long time, and these choices would im sure help keep it that way. rear wheel drive can work, and theres nothing like driving rwd. fwd is pretty much all these kids know, this would introduce the mustang, and rwd to a set of people that would never have had a chance to own . i love my mustang so far, its my 2nd one, and its well made. we can do it, we can (americans) make great cars, and im proud to drive a american car built by americans. if you have not driven one yet, you owe it to yourself to try one..........
Reply
Naveed 9:51AM (12/10/2007)
@ rich: "im very easy with the peddle... i would love to see ford make the mustang about 7 inches shorter, and come-in at around 3,000 ibs... if the 4 had close to 180 hp, that should be enough to power it."
Ford makes the perfect car for you, and it's called the Focus. Its FWD won't make a difference because you're "easy with the peddle [sic]." I'd bet most V6 Mustang owners don't even know their cars are RWD.
And with all this hoo-ha about keeping the Mustang alive: it's a nameplate, folks; get over it.
Chad 10:56AM (12/10/2007)
I tend to agree with Neveed. If you're looking for gas mileage why buy that?
Rboyett 9:35AM (12/10/2007)
I think there is a chance we will eventually see the V8 Mustang go away. However we will continue to get V8 power from a turbo, supercharged, or twincharged version of the 3.5liter V6. IMO Mustang sales won't be hurt too much if said V6 gets 300 to 350HP.
It also wouldn't hurt if Ford put the Mustang on a diet. I love my '06 GT, but it about 500lbs overweight IMO.
Reply
David(Postal) 9:41AM (12/10/2007)
I didn't realize the V8 sales were such a high percentage. There seem to be a lot of V8s down here in Alabama but when I was in Maryland it was mostly V6
Rob 12:32PM (12/10/2007)
they would lose a lot of sales if they canned the V8 in favor of a turbo 6. Just harken back to the days of the SVO and probe turbo and you'll know what I'm talking about. No V8 option would lose them about 40% of the sales.
Rboyett 1:15PM (12/10/2007)
@Rob
They may not have a choice. If Congress goes through with a 35mpg requirement Ford will either have to move to a suped up V6 of pull the GT entirely. Also, that 40% does not consist entirely of V8 purists. There are plenty like me that will be happy with a V6 that has V8 torque and V8 power.
I should qualify these comments by saying that I don't believe this will happen soon. I don't see it happening for the 2010 model or even 2015. But if the new CAFE rules go though, 2020 is a real possibility. GM is already reconsidering their V8 plans beyond the next gen Camaro because of proposed CAFE rules. The RWD Impala might not even make it to production.
BTW, I can see where you are coming from with your Probe and SVO analogy. Ford did originally consider calling the Probe a Mustang but reconsidered primarily because the Probe was FWD. The turbo four was a secondary consideration. The SVO 4 banger was failure primarily because it had very little torque when compared to a V8. Also, the gas crisis had passed so Ford didn't need it any longer. Current Turbos are lag free do much better in terms of torque than turbos of old. TWINCHARGING changes everything because with it you can get A LOT more HP and torque with a lot fewer cubic inches and a lot better fuel economy.
It should be noted that Ford is investing quite a lot into TwinCharging.
naggs 1:52PM (12/10/2007)
turbos are not and never will be lag free
twin charging is very expensive, complex, heavy and unproven and as far as i know, ford has not spent a dime on it
twin turbo with direct inject is another thing and that is coming very soon
what i see in store for the mustang is this. there will always be a v8 but v8s will start at 450-500 hp. for lower power outputs, v6s of 300 hp and turbo v6s of 400 hp will cover the other power ranges.
the v8 will still be available for those who dont think its a mustang with out 8 cyl and it wont hurt fleet mpg too much because it will only account for a small percent of overall sales.
EMC 5:32PM (12/10/2007)
actually twin charging is proven, and has been used since the 80's (look up Nissan March Super Turbo)
And the new VW Golf GT is quite impressive!
naggs 6:05PM (12/10/2007)
so that is one racecar 30 years ago and one production engine ever...
and ive heard the VW drives like crap, with the supercharger engaging and disengaging power delivery is not smooth.
by the time its all said and done, you would be better off developing a DI turbo engine and spending the weight and $$$ elsewhere on the vehicle
i guarantee that twin charging is NOT the way of the future
EnviroBob 9:44AM (12/10/2007)
So with gas prices so high, V8 sales account for 45% of sales as compared to when gas prices were low, when V8 sales accounted for 30% of sales...
Reply
Jeff 9:45AM (12/10/2007)
For people like me that were curious what the mileage specs were on the various models, here they are (manual transmissions):
Mustang (210-hp 4.0L V6) mpg:
17 city, 25 hwy
Mustang GT (300-hp 4.6L V8) mpg:
15 city, 23 hwy
Mustang GT500 (500-hp 5.4L supercharged V8) mpg:
14 city, 20 hwy
I'd say with the rather underwhelming performance and fuel economy from the current V6, it's no wonder people are buying the GT instead.
And hey, once you're buying the GT, you might as well get the GT500 instead. Or at least that would be my thinking! :)
Reply
RealityCheck 12:59PM (12/10/2007)
I have a super charged V6 and can get 18 city 28 highway easy!. The V8 really gets about 12 city and 18 highway. Putting in a turbo 4cyl might be a fun idea that would be worth the test drive. GM has a 260 turbo 4cyl that Ford could duplicate in a heartbeat.... But a 400 pound diet would be easy without that heavy V8 or 6cyl. But the 6cyl has a ton of power and is a blast to drive with a supercharger. And the best part that this car with 18's, convertable and all GT body parts still cost me under 25k and is only a year old.....
Rboyett 1:22PM (12/10/2007)
@RealityCheck
Those are the more realistic EPA mileage figures. I have an 06 GT and I'm getting 23MPG in reasonable driving conditions (going 65MPH with no AC)
If you're getting 12 to 18 in a stock GT then you're not trying to save gas to begin with or there is a problem with the car. At 12MPG I'd say the driver is dropping the hammer a bit often. (not that there's anything wrong with that ;) )
Bryan 11:39PM (12/10/2007)
Have you the driven the V6? It is no slouch by any means. I had one for a rental and that thing was fast! I don;t remember the gas mileage being bad at all, even with me pushing it. My guess is, the V6 now is much more peppier than the old one. Therefore, it really isn't as punishing as the old V6, and people are willing to purchase more of them.
lad 9:49AM (12/10/2007)
Maybe the car is outdated and obsolete. When compared with EVOs and STIs the thing is a lead sled, carrying way too much weight and suffering from the lack of innovation. It never made sense to me to build a heavy car and then add even more weight with a V8 when, according to Colin Chapman, what you always want to add for performance and efficiency is "lightness." Ford should be a leader in innovation not a company re-living its past year after year by continuing to produce old designs and pushing moldy old traditions. Let the Shelbys and Tangs pass quietly away while you innovate with new electric drive lines and carbon fiber bodies. It's time to catch up and even leap frog the competition if possible.
Reply
Noidor 10:35AM (12/10/2007)
I know I'm going to get flamed for this, I don't like the Mustang. I mean I like it's design (although I think taillights are too big), but l loathe its blatant cost cutting themes. Whether it's the live-real axle (at least Ford should have offered IRS as an option on high-powered versions), cheap plastic interior, wobbly suspension, etc etc. Ford needs to make this a proper all-our sports car from $30k and up. Then produce another coupe to go underneath.
Mustang deserves respect and proper cash infusion to make it a solid product. Here in US the patriots might love it, but in rest of the world it's a tribute to outdated technology, and cost cutting.