Ford Says It's Committed to V-8 Mustangs Regardless of What Others Do
Ford Says It's Committed to V-8 Mustangs Regardless of What Others Do
You're viewing a single thread.
V8s have a great sound, but americans have historically been very bad at getting any kind of fuel mileage out of them.
downsizing would be an idea, you could technically make a 2-3 Liter V8, but then you have the complexity of two equally performing 4-cilynder engines.
and especially ford doesn't do mechanical complexity very well, look at the 1.0 ecoboost.
There's nothing more American than a V8 that churns out a shockingly small amount of power and turns petrol into literally nothing.
7.2L V8 producing 200HP 💪🦅🇱🇷
i mean... they do pay around 4 bucks per gallon. if you do a bit of math, we europeans pay double.
and then it has like 600 nm of torque, but it'll do burnouts at 2000rpm.
and they wonder why even some americans don't want their cars.
and gotta have them pushrods in 2024!
Ford haven't used pushrod mustang engines since the 4.6 from the early 90's.
In...the...60s-70s maybe. Today's V8 mustangs and camaros pump out 400-700HP depending on model. Yea fuel mileage still sucks but it's improved from those old models. Definitely not something you should get if you want fuel efficiency.
I can't tell if you're just being facetious.
Does anyone who buys a mustang care if it gets good MPG?
Certainly not a priority, but Ford still has to meet certain standards that as I understand it keeps getting tougher.
The 6.2L LT1 in the Camaro SS I owned got about 16-18 mpg city and 27-30mpg highway. Its actually comparable to the 2.5T SUV I drive now with the city mileage being a bit better in the SUV and the highway mileage worse than the Camaro.
30mpg is actually impressive for 6 litres of displacement, well done chevy! but i imagine that was the stick shift one.
It was an automatic. It had active fuel management which included cylinder deactivation. When it was cruising on the highway it was running in V4 mode. That and it was a coupe and far more aerodynamic than most SUVs.
so it basically ran as a 3 litre 4 cylinder, but still. my mom gets 25-30mpg out of her 1.8L automatic avensis, so that camaro is up there with "decent" fuel mileage.
americans have historically been very bad at getting any kind of fuel mileage out of them...you could technically make a 2-3 Liter V8,
Remember this little 3.5?
The Rover V8 began life as the Buick 215, an all-aluminium OHV pushrod engine introduced in 1960 for the 1961 US model year (it was on their drawing boards in the late 1950s).
The 3.0 3VZFE from Toyota was always mocked as the “fuel efficiency of a V8, power of a 4 cyl”. The motor was a joke and the 5VZFE that came later was much improved.
Ford does decent with their V8 cars (they’ve had most issues with the 1.0, 1.5, and 2.7 ecoboosts), although the EPA ratings are tight. To get a good idea you’d have to compare equally, like finding another 5.0L, 480hp car that weighs 4,000 lbs (or at least that ballpark). they’re not terribly common.
I think the most common failure on a mod family V8 was either cam phasers or spark plugs. Which thankfully they fixed on the coyote. Other than that the car will die before the engine.
When I bought my 2016 mustang, I got 27.5 mpg on the trip home. I’ve averaged 30 before. They’re efficient if you stay under 3k rpm’s most of the time. City driving they’re ok, I get 18. Averaged over the life of the car I have got 24 mpg total. Which for a 3,800lb 435hp car is pretty damn good.
Throwing that Americans get bad mpg out of V8’s is a bit skewed. Gas is cheap here (relatively) and they’re mostly in trucks/suv’s and not cars. Like currently it’s $2.50/gallon at my Costco.
Not to mention, heavy duty “light trucks” like the F250 or GM2500 and up, do not have to adhere to any mileage standards and are exempt.