32 replies to this topic

[Bob Riebe]

https://www.motortre...B133E16FF739C07

 

 

 

 

Proof God is a gearhead!

[Ross Stonefeld]

This makes calling the E-SUV a Mustang even more confusing.

[Bob Riebe]

From what I read on Automotive News, this is an attempt to make Mustang a sub-division, i.e. Thunderbird, Imperial etc.

 

Instead of insulting the Mustang they should call those electrombiles Edsels.

[Greg Locock]

Both hybrids and EVs are difficult to do in an existing platform. Hybrids is mainly money, but pure BEVs need a fundamental rethink on the packaging, or you end up with a trunk full of batteries.

[Ross Stonefeld]

This makes calling the E-SUV a Mustang even more confusing.

 

Granted, I'm posting this in a dimension where there is a Ferrari SUV.

[Alfisti]

This is good news, it won't compromise the package. It also means, if I ever decide to ditch the 3 car set up and sell my beater and sell my Porsche, one can still pick up a babied 2018 Mustang as a compromise and it'll still look pretty fresh in 2030. Outstanding. 

[Magoo]

What this shows is that the Mustang target audience is shrinking. In the original 1964 vision, the Mustang could be optioned in endless ways and be all things to all people, from secretary's car to weekend drag racer. That is no more. Not many secretaries buy Mustangs. The Mustang is strictly for the sporting and performance crowd, and they want the V8 RWD GT and its variants. The numbers aren't there for the other versions, Ford has apparently determined. 

 

Chevrolet discovered a similar thing when it reintroduced the Camaro in 2009 with a 4-cyl version. (EDIT: That was a V6. My mistake.)No takers, and that totally scrambled their product mix estimates. 

 

None of this has anything to do with the Mustang Mach-E EV, which is totally its own thing and basically a Mustang in name only for marketing purposes. In the long run, it is the future of the Mustang brand, because the future is in EVs and crossovers. 

Edited by Magoo, 20 September 2022 - 12:42.

[GregThomas]

Granted, I'm posting this in a dimension where there is a Ferrari SUV.

 

Have you seen the published torque figures for this thing ?  What a tow car for for your classic racer.....

[Ross Stonefeld]

Apart from the insane mpg, I was looking at it and thinking "for a crossover it's actually kinda cool looking" and wondering if I could fit a mountain bike in the back with the front wheel removed. Because while 99.9% of people who would buy a Ferrari SUV are going to be the worst spouses of the worst people you can imagine, plus some athletes and musicians; I would absolutely be putting potting soil in the back and helping people move with mine.

 

 

Re McGuire's comment about 4 cylinder Camaros. It's a weird one. I don't dislike muscle cars, I think some of the Dodges and Camaros of the past decade look kinda cool? But I neither want something that gets 12mpg nor a 2litre 4 turbo 'muscle car'. I might as well get an Audi at that point. 

 

Having just checked figures a Dodge Challenger is estimated to get 18-20mpg on combined driving, exactly what my 1992 Alfa 164L gets. The latter is comfortable to drive and comes in a very low profile shade of wine red, which is exactly what you want when you're going 15mph faster than the rest of highway traffic. And I regularly park it next to the lime green Dodge at the YMCA, because if you have a silly car too we're basically family. 

[Magoo]

Originally, pony cars were pointed mainly at the youth market. They were stylish and affordable with a wide range of personalization options. 

 

Now, pony cars are bloated, overweight, overpowered, overpriced machines for the gold chain set. 

 

That said, the Mustang is not nearly as bloated as the other two. The standard V8 GT with stick or automatic is actually pretty nice. I've lost count of how many Mustangs I've driven and they are  my favorite. (That or the Bullitt.) The Shelby KRs with 700 hp and up are sort of ridiculous. 

[Fat Boy]

 

Re McGuire's comment about 4 cylinder Camaros. It's a weird one. I don't dislike muscle cars, I think some of the Dodges and Camaros of the past decade look kinda cool? But I neither want something that gets 12mpg nor a 2litre 4 turbo 'muscle car'. I might as well get an Audi at that point. 

It's not weird as much as it's just wrong. He comes to the conclusion that because 15 years ago the Camaro didn't have success with its 4, that the entire concept is void. Nice extrapolation, but it completely ignores reality. Especially since GM kept a 4 in the lineup for the duration.

 

The Camaro 4 cylinder actually a pretty potent little engine (275 HP/295 lbft) that punches well above its weight and knocks down 30 MPG on the freeway. Ford has a similar lash-up with their EcoBoost 4 cylinder which is even stronger at (330 HP/ 350 lbft) and gets similar mileage. I don't have sales figures, but I've seen that in the range of 40% of Mustangs are sold with the 4's. Maybe the Ford crowd accepted the 4-cyl a little more readily as Ford has sold 4-cylinder Mustangs since the 70's? Regardless, these are absolutely legit cars which a younger customer can afford and older customers understand make more than enough power to get in trouble, yet appreciate the entry price and economy. Kids are not offended that a Pony car might have a 4 cylinder. ALL the cars that interest them have 4 or 6 cylinders (Subaru, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc).

 

This was also pretty cool....https://gmauthority....maro-1le-turbo/


 

[Magoo]

Link: Production numbers for the Ford Mustang by year since 1965.

 

Illustrates how the U.S. ponycar category has steadily shrunk from a significant segment to a rather narrow niche market. 

 

 

https://www.cjponypa...hroughout-years

[Magoo]

It's not weird as much as it's just wrong. He comes to the conclusion that because 15 years ago the Camaro didn't have success with its 4, that the entire concept is void. Nice extrapolation, but it completely ignores reality. Especially since GM kept a 4 in the lineup for the duration.

 

 

Well, I suppose first I would point out that the Camaro does a fraction of the Mustang's volume -- around 21,000 in 2021 as compared to 65,000+ for the Mustang. (The Camaro was actually outsold by the Corvette.) None of the Camaro engines come close to their sales targets. I'm not saying the four is a bad engine at all. 

Edited by Magoo, 18 September 2022 - 19:36.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It's not weird as much as it's just wrong. He comes to the conclusion that because 15 years ago the Camaro didn't have success with its 4, that the entire concept is void. Nice extrapolation, but it completely ignores reality. Especially since GM kept a 4 in the lineup for the duration.

 

The Camaro 4 cylinder actually a pretty potent little engine (275 HP/295 lbft) that punches well above its weight and knocks down 30 MPG on the freeway. Ford has a similar lash-up with their EcoBoost 4 cylinder which is even stronger at (330 HP/ 350 lbft) and gets similar mileage. I don't have sales figures, but I've seen that in the range of 40% of Mustangs are sold with the 4's. Maybe the Ford crowd accepted the 4-cyl a little more readily as Ford has sold 4-cylinder Mustangs since the 70's? Regardless, these are absolutely legit cars which a younger customer can afford and older customers understand make more than enough power to get in trouble, yet appreciate the entry price and economy. Kids are not offended that a Pony car might have a 4 cylinder. ALL the cars that interest them have 4 or 6 cylinders (Subaru, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc).

 

This was also pretty cool....https://gmauthority....maro-1le-turbo/


 

 

I guess my take is if you're buying a car like that you're partly buying it for that V8 rumble and the power and etc. Though I don't need a 500hp whatever. A turbo hybrid Ferrari would be kinda weird too? Isn't the point to get a silly V12? If I wanted to err towards the sensible end of silly, I'd go get the Maserati.

 

But I'd also have to compare the 4cyl Camaro to other things in the price point and configuration. I think a bare bones Audi A3 is 35k+ and all I'm getting there is AWD and some 'refinement'.

 

That's what I meant about 'weird'. It's a specific kind of car, as much an emotional purchase as a sensible one. So if I'm at "**** it, give me Detroit iron" point I'm not looking for the pragmatic version? Equally there's no point in my Audi 'journey' where I go "Yes, I need RS6 levels of power to haul compost". 

 

And I say this as a fan of a good 2L/4 turbo. They really work in everyday use.

[Magoo]

I guess my take is if you're buying a car like that you're partly buying it for that V8 rumble and the power and etc. Though I don't need a 500hp whatever. A turbo hybrid Ferrari would be kinda weird too? Isn't the point to get a silly V12? If I wanted to err towards the sensible end of silly, I'd go get the Maserati.

 

But I'd also have to compare the 4cyl Camaro to other things in the price point and configuration. I think a bare bones Audi A3 is 35k+ and all I'm getting there is AWD and some 'refinement'.

 

That's what I meant about 'weird'. It's a specific kind of car, as much an emotional purchase as a sensible one. So if I'm at "**** it, give me Detroit iron" point I'm not looking for the pragmatic version? Equally there's no point in my Audi 'journey' where I go "Yes, I need RS6 levels of power to haul compost". 

 

And I say this as a fan of a good 2L/4 turbo. They really work in everyday use.

 

 

I totally agree. There are Camaro buyers and there are four-cyl turbo buyers and there is nothing wrong with either one, but the Venn diagram might not line up very well. 

[Magoo]

Well, I suppose first I would point out that the Camaro does a fraction of the Mustang's volume -- around 21,000 in 2021 as compared to 65,000+ for the Mustang. (The Camaro was actually outsold by the Corvette.) None of the Camaro engines come close to their sales targets. I'm not saying the four is a bad engine at all. 

 

Obviously, the low volume is not sustainable. If there is a next-generation Camaro it is bound to be electifric. No doubt Mary is currently wetting a finger to the wind to determine if the Camaro brand has force on that vector. 

[Catalina Park]

The Camaro body is on its way to V8 Supercars next year, that should really help push sales.

[Magoo]

The Camaro body is on its way to V8 Supercars next year, that should really help push sales.

 

Maybe that means GM is planning to send production Camaros for sale to Australia again. Or not. 

[Fat Boy]

Obviously, the low volume is not sustainable. If there is a next-generation Camaro it is bound to be electifric. No doubt Mary is currently wetting a finger to the wind to determine if the Camaro brand has force on that vector. 

 

 

This would be more funny as a gif, but this forum is a little clunky in that regard.

[Fat Boy]

I guess my take is if you're buying a car like that you're partly buying it for that V8 rumble and the power and etc. Though I don't need a 500hp whatever. A turbo hybrid Ferrari would be kinda weird too? Isn't the point to get a silly V12? If I wanted to err towards the sensible end of silly, I'd go get the Maserati.

 

But I'd also have to compare the 4cyl Camaro to other things in the price point and configuration. I think a bare bones Audi A3 is 35k+ and all I'm getting there is AWD and some 'refinement'.

 

That's what I meant about 'weird'. It's a specific kind of car, as much an emotional purchase as a sensible one. So if I'm at "**** it, give me Detroit iron" point I'm not looking for the pragmatic version? Equally there's no point in my Audi 'journey' where I go "Yes, I need RS6 levels of power to haul compost". 

 

And I say this as a fan of a good 2L/4 turbo. They really work in everyday use.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

For sure, there's not a single Muscle/Pony car owner around who doesn't like the sound of a big V8, but that doesn't mean all buyers put the same priority on it. With the 4-cylinder engine, the Camaro and Mustang are not for the traditional crowd. It's for a younger crowd who has no problem with 4 cylinder engines. They like a chance to get rear wheel drive (which is another reason why the Sub-Toy 86 chassis is so popular) and they like that they can tune an extra 100 HP into the car for chump change. They appreciate a little better fuel economy.

I don't know how many of you have driven the Camaro or Mustang, but the power delivery in these cars is actually closer to the traditional cars. The V-8's have to get revs up a little before they make power, especially the Ford. The little turbo motors are on boil all the time. They probably make more low end torque than the V-8's. They don't rev like the V8's, though.

I just think that seeing a Camaro or Mustang 4 as a lesser Pony/Muscle car is kinda obvious. If someone buys the 4-cylinder version of this, they might be less in the market for a "Poor Man's Corvette" or "Poor Man's Shelby." It might be more of a "Poor Man's M2" or "Poor Man's general performance car." I don't see these as traditional Muscle Car buyers. Ford seemed to have found the niche better than GM, because a big chunk of their buyers go for the 4. Like I said, though, they've had a turbo 4 in the line for a long time. Maybe it's just less taboo?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yeah I get what you're saying. My sister has a Q5 and it's a 2L 4-turbo and it's deceptively quick. Being able to get off the line(in a big city where you have 3 lanes even in the suburbs) so I can get over in time for my turn, or respond to traffic on the highway, or whatever, is super useful. And with that torque(vs like a Subaru) you don't have to be so throttle happy so driven smartly you can really get some good mileage out of it. 

 

I think it's more a naming thing. A RWD 4cylinder turbo of any styling and any other brand would be fine to me. Let's call it a Pontiac Gordito. But calling it a Mustang/Camaro/etc/et al is "wait, no, a Camaro is...blah blah". 

The car itself is an anachronism and that's kinda the point. And that's a corner they may have painted themselves into. But that's with the over-40s. With a clean sheet yeah give me a compact quiet fuel efficient boosted engine. Every V6 sedan I've driven has had more than enough engine.

 

Which is why I went all scowl-emoji on the Mustang Mach E. By all means make an electric car. Hell make an electric performance car. But only the latter really can qualify for the Mustang name because they've built a reputation(?) on it being a performance/extreme/whatever category. 

 

Imagine a FWD  M-series with a 1.6l hybrid something or other. You'd feel conned   Likewise an Audi without AWD and a turbo just feels...wrong? Former owner of an FWD Diesel Audi 100 here, obviously. 

 

Full Disclosure: I have Lancias, plural, in the garage. I may be so deep into sunk cost fallacy I can't yield on "No we've spent too many years with an ill advised idea, at this point we have to own it and style it out".

[Magoo]

All the turbo 4-cylinder pony cars lack are eight firing impulses per cycle. V8 owners want what they want in sound and feel. In that regard they are a little like Harley-Davidson owners. 

 

The performance and driveability of these engines are clearly superior to many V8s of the muscle car era, but many buyers still aren't interested. 

 

These buyers will no doubt have the same reaction to electric performance cars -- unless they can somehow be turned around. Dodge appears to be aiming its electric muscle car messaging  directly at its current Hellcat audience. We'll see how that goes. 

 

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yeah I saw some aggro about EV's and quarter mile times. I don't know if that was wounded pride at being beat by a family car or clinging to the sanctity of Holley carbs. On paper they should enjoy all that torque and frankly crazy 0-60 times. And they should have aftermarket and tuning potential. But the clack of keyboards isn't as nostalgic as a socket wrench.

 

I think the Harley thing is an excellent comparison and squares with various Kevin Cameron readings. You can't not have that thump-thump-thump at idle. But how do you keep up with demographics too. Which was the great debate over the Ilmor designed H-D inteded for European road racing.

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 19 September 2022 - 19:56.

[Magoo]

It's telling that the EcoBoost turbo four in the 2024 Mustang will be offered only with the 10-speed fully automatic transmission. The manual gearbox has been dropped. 

 

We can take that as Ford's expectation of who the target buyers will be. The last I heard, fewer than 10 percent of the turbo four purchasers had been opting for the manual. 

 

On the flip side of that, the V8 will be offered with a choice of automatic or 6-speed real manual gearbox.

 

Nearly half the V8 buyers choose the manual, which doesn't sound like a lot but among American car buyers of American cars it's remarkable. Far higher than C7 Corvette. (C8 is DCT only.)

[Bob Riebe]

Although it is not common, I have seen pony cars with trailer hitches, A v-8 performs all the tasks a blown 4 banger does with less effort, so there is less strain on the engine, same for a six banger.

 

The four bangers are there because govt. rules were easier to meet with a 4 banger; although I hope I am not around that long, but I partly would like to see how many problems thee new cars have in 15-20 years.

 

Yesterday I saw a comparatively recent suv/econo van  whose body looked real good, except the plastic rocker panel facia was  coming off and under neath solid rust city.

 

The new electro mobiles exist for the same reason, as the  Italian head of Chrysler said in Automotive News: "We did nto choose to build these, we were forced."

Edited by Bob Riebe, 19 September 2022 - 22:56.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Sorry what's the engine got to do with the panel fit?

 

And a "A V8" at 6 litres has great torque, sure. The V6 makes more or less the same torque as the turbo, but probably lower in the revs. 

 

How does a 10 speed auto even work? My Saab has three gears(and lord does it need more) but 10? That's a gearchange every 10-15mph. How bad is the powerband?

 

The manual thing is a good corollary. I got over shifters a long, long time ago. It's a technique not a personality trait, and ultimately just another point of failure. I'll eventually reach that point about naturally aspirated muscle cars too.

[Fat Boy]

It's telling that the EcoBoost turbo four in the 2024 Mustang will be offered only with the 10-speed fully automatic transmission. The manual gearbox has been dropped. 

 

We can take that as Ford's expectation of who the target buyers will be. The last I heard, fewer than 10 percent of the turbo four purchasers had been opting for the manual. 

 

On the flip side of that, the V8 will be offered with a choice of automatic or 6-speed real manual gearbox.

 

Nearly half the V8 buyers choose the manual, which doesn't sound like a lot but among American car buyers of American cars it's remarkable. Far higher than C7 Corvette. (C8 is DCT only.)

There's a back-story to the manual thing with the Eco's. Full throttle at low RPM means big cylinder pressures, knock and rods out the side of the block. The auto is to protect the engines from stupid drivers as much as anything. I read the take rate was right at 10%, so we agree on that number. When I said earlier I couldn't find sales numbers, I wasn't talking gross. Those are easy enough. I was referring to v8 vs. 4 take rates. That stuff is behind a paywall.

 

The GM/Ford 10-speed boxes are pretty cool. It's strictly a fuel mileage deal. If you're on a track, you only use 3-4-5-6. The cool part is how quickly they shift for a conventional box. You can't beat them with a manual.

 

And, yes, there is a big contingent that *must* have the V8 rumble because that *is* the quintessential Big American Muscle Car sound (this goes back to why race cars *must* sound good). Look at the numbers, though, there is clearly another market who likes the styling and performance and doesn't care about the added power/sound. The Mustang 4 cylinder is a sub 5-second 0-60 car. It's reasonably quick. I've been completely irresponsible in cars with less than 100 HP. I think most anyone can figure out how to be a jackass when the number is over 300. 500+ is really only for over-achievers who want to take out entire crowds.

[Greg Locock]

The explosion in the number of gears is because you've lost the torque converter, which gave you a 2:1 CVT in series with the gearbox.  

[404KF2]

So they "creep" on clutch slip rather than a torque converter? shudder

[Catalina Park]

Maybe that means GM is planning to send production Camaros for sale to Australia again. Or not.

GM is selling some vehicles in Australia through TWR  HSV WAG GMSV which is owned by Walkinshaw. GMSV is doing the RHD conversions and compliance. They currently import Chevrolet Pickups and have an order book for the Corvette. There is plans for the Camaro.

See https://www.gmspecialtyvehicles.com/

 

[Magoo]

So they "creep" on clutch slip rather than a torque converter? shudder

 

The torque converter is still in there, but they added a PCM-controlled wet clutch to lock it up at 1:1 to prevent slippage when they can. The torque converter is a magical device but not very efficient. 

 

So here in the ICE end game, they get ever more aggressive with TCC engagement to wheedle out a little more efficiency. 

 

The mechanics and math of it are simple and interesting. 

 

https://x-engineer.o...nverter-clutch/

 

https://www.sae.org/...t/2011-01-0146/

Edited by Magoo, 20 September 2022 - 12:44.

[Alfisti]

I have driven both the 4 banger and a GT Mustang and they are two COMPLETELY different cars. Could not comprehend the 4 cylinder, absolutely bland as a glass of water. There's zero drama, it's not like say a WRX where there's a nice sound (stock) etc etc, this is just total MEH. It makes plenty of power but couldn't care less, i can't fathom how one makes all the compromises of a big, heavy 2 door coupe then lopes around with a soulless 4cyl turbo. 

 

Hard pass. 

[Fat Boy]

I have driven both the 4 banger and a GT Mustang and they are two COMPLETELY different cars. Could not comprehend the 4 cylinder, absolutely bland as a glass of water. There's zero drama, it's not like say a WRX where there's a nice sound (stock) etc etc, this is just total MEH. It makes plenty of power but couldn't care less, i can't fathom how one makes all the compromises of a big, heavy 2 door coupe then lopes around with a soulless 4cyl turbo. 

 

Hard pass. 

You're missing the point. Whether or not this car is for you personally is moot. These cars are selling to their audience. You might find it to be bland. OK, don't buy one. I doubt the guys that won that national autocross championship in a 4 cylinder Camaro against unrestricted V8's share your opinion.

Maybe I'm biased, but some of my favorite race cars have been 4 cylinders (or 6 or 8 or 12, it's not a big deal one way or another). I still get a warm spot in my belly when I hear a Kent warming up in the morning, even though I haven't played with one in decades.