vegas_

In other models Ford charges about $1000 extra for the turbo 4 vs. the V6
The Question is, is this a real cost difference, or just marketing?
I find it hard to believe that it would cost Ford $1000 more to make a 4cyl with a turbo
vs a 6 cylinder. I'm guessing Fords production cost is about the same. You get about 3MPG more, so I'm guessing they are just charging a premium for that because people will pay for the extra MPG. But one might think that for CAFE reasons they might want to sell more EcoBoost (hopefully the higher price is not to cover extra warranty cost for the Turbo)

Then again, the 2.0L EcoBoost engine is made in Spain. And that will be a very popular engine for many Fords sold in Europe. So their capacity might be limited, with most of the production going into cars for Europe. European countries/Unions are generally hostile towards business, so Ford would be reluctant to expand production in Europe. But in the US they are going to have no trouble expanding production of V6 engines in Ohio.

If you hear of Ford starting to make the 4cyl Ecoboost engines in the US (or Mexico) then I would guess the V6 would be going away, or become an extra cost option for Mustang, Taurus, and Lincolns.

whosniffedme

A turbo 4 banger is going to kill that hefty v6. If you're doubting the potential of it you've clearly never ridden in a Subaru. Done right they kill.

kdryan

The 4 cylinder is going to have 300 hp while the V6 will have 310. Not that much difference and the 4 banger will weigh less and get better mileage. Personally, I would consider it and lose the high school hot-rodder mentality.

Hamidar05

I would consider a Mustang to be more in line with an Incom RZ-1 A-wing, and neither has a 4 banger... and I will keep my high schooler hot rod mentality, if you are so refined get a BMW....

high schooler hot rod mentality is somewhat of an oxymoron these days with the advent of the Ricer. Everyone can choose what they want, just that some of us don't agree on what is cool -

vegas_

Anyone with a serious High School Hot Rod mentality, isn't going to bother with the V6
He'll go for the V8, If he has the extra $7500

The production cost difference between a V8 and a V6 has to be less than $1000, I'm guessing the $7500 premium is to keep sales low to mitigate the effect on Fords CAFE

vegas_

Maybe a real driver is driving the Subaru, and their grandmother is driving the other car?

Gotta love the Classic Ricer sound, sounds just like rice being fried in a pan.

kdryan

In case no one told you, 'No replacement for displacement' is dead. Now days, it's 'No replacement for technology.' It's not like the Mustang doesn't have a history of having a 4 cylinder engine. Both the second and third generations both had one. One of my favorite Mustangs I've had is a little blue '86 with a 4 cyl in it that I used for my daily driver. It was sporty, great looking and got excellent mileage and I wish I had that car back right now.

steev

Horizontally opposed 4s don't sound ricey....

83gtragtop

People need to look into the Mustangs past before they can understand what's best for its future. The Mustang has come with N/A 4's, Turbo 4's, straight 6's and V6's over the past 50 years. While the V8 is the most popular motor for good reason, it is not what defines a Mustang. Like it or not, the Mustang is not regressing with this ecoboost 4cyl, it's progressing. The current engine lineup is by far the most high performance from top to bottom in the Mustangs history, bar none.


That's an interesting idea, although I'd probably just tune my 2.3L, keep it in my S550 and whoop your 3v up and down the track while you pretend that it doesn't bother you.

Vyacheslav Molotov

No, taxation without representation was nothing more than a catchy slogan. In reality the debt brought on by the 7 years war (the French and Indian war) and England's following attempts to secure control over the 13 as actual colonies was the spark for the war. The attempted enforcement of the Navigation Acts, the restriction of migration beyond the Appalachians in order to reduce conflicts with Native Americans, and the various taxes that the English put into place to try to get the American's to pay for 50% of all of their future defense costs were the more direct costs of the war.

In essence prior to 1763 the colonies that would become the United States were mostly under their own control, colonial governments had immense power while the crown engaged in what is known as Salutary neglect, benign neglect, and various other names. In essence they tried to change from a hands off to a hands on government.

Representation within British parliament would have achieved little, as we lacked number sufficient to stop the English from trying to exercise control.

This is why its interesting that we call it the "revolutionary war" when in reality it was a conservative affair attempting to maintain the 1763 status quo.


The phrasing of your question could be interpreted in another manner, asking "why we kicked England's butt" could be interpreted as "for what reason did we win the war." In this case, I would suggest that a comparison with Vietnam is in order. Forcing the British to fight an extended war in a distant land was the deciding factor in the war. While Washington was far from a military genius, he recognized that in order to keep the revolution alive, and in fact in order to win, he simply had to not lose his army. We fought a 'dirty" guerrilla style campaign against the British, and we held out long enough to receive French aide (they were simply looking for a way to hurt the British) which gave us much needed troops and especially naval resources, allowing us to prevent a retreat into the sea.

On the other hand, the British made a number of faulty assumptions. They were constantly looking for a supposed group of loyalists that would join their cause, we are talking massive numbers that they believed existed within the southern colonies (fun fact Georgia originally lacked slavery because it was a defensive/penal colony). In reality, their campaign in the south was counterproductive, just as with the Strategic Hamlet program in Vietnam, the result was not the irradiation of the insurgent forces, but an encouragement to join the cause of the rebels (also no massive loyalist group was ever found). So while the British became more and more tired about fighting their brothers in a war expensive in both lives and money, the American colonists became increasingly angered over their occupation.

As for the 4 banger, I say why not, especially if it increases European sales.