I was thinking of this while looking at the new pics. I know we don't drive these type of cars for their fuel economy, but one thing that jumps out at me looking at the new 'Stang is that it cannot be very aerodynamic, and perhaps a gas guzzler.

The front end looks way too blunt and has alot of open grill space. Being a product designer/developer myself, this bugs me a little. I guess gas milage is also going retro? What do some other folks think? My stance on retro styling is "Say Whoa to Retro!". To paraphrase a song by Metallica:

"Going back instead of forward seems to me absurd."

Wasn't the LS1 more efficient (milage and emmissions) than the LT1?

 

You may have a point about gas milage, I don't think the mod motors are overly known for their fuel economy and blocky styling won't help. I have seen a few guys on Mustang boards complain that the car continues to have brick-like aerodynamics but you can't argue with sales, and I've never been one to sacrifice style just for a lower coefficient of drag. This particular style however (retro) isn't my cup o' tea.

 

He is right about Ford's Modular motors being inefficiant. I heard somwhere that the current Mustang has either 4 or 6 cats and looses like 100HP because of it. People knock GM for using pushrod engines but lets compare the LS1 to the 4.6L...

LS1 advantages...

More Powerful
Lighter
Easier to package/physically smaller
Cheaper to make
Burns cleaner
Gets better gas milage
Has better performance characteristics (a.k.a. better TQ curve)
ect.

4.6L advantages..

There are none I can think of..

Also saying the LS1 has more displacement is a lame excuse.....especially when the 4.6L has more cams and is such a huge engine. There is no reason for GM to make OHC engines.

 

You're right, you can't argue with sales, and I understand the business case for retro styling from a maketing perspective.

I'm just wondering how much milage people are willing to sacrifice? Each car market is obviously different as far as the importance of milage, but I'd think even in this class you have to balance milage with everthing else (power, styling, etc.), the way the Corvette team refuses to let the 'Vette slide into the 'gas guzzler' tax bracket.

Just a thought. By the way, I've 2 Mustang owning friends: 1 kinda likes it the other hates it.

 

In Bandito voice:

"Fuel economy! We don't need no stinkin' fuel economy!"

 

I hope that's a typo... otherwise you might want to go back and rethink that one.

 

Hopefully that's where D.O.D. comes in, because every engine is wasteful on the highway, which is where most mileage usually gets put on and that's where you can benefit your mileage a lot with D.O.D. I predict other manufacturers being forced to follow suit once GM's program is successful. I don't think mileage is going down. compare the LS1's efficiency and burning cleanliness with any "retro" V8 and you'll find it's not even a close contest.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

A 6th gear or 2nd overdrive would definitely help on the highway. That's were the T56 comes into the picture.

We'll see what Ford has up it's sleeve. They're supposed to improve on economy, not decrease it. I really don't think it'll be that much lower then the current 18/25 or what ever it is.

 

Aerodynamic efficiency is notoriously difficult to divine by looks alone. Cars can look like bricks but be slippery to the wind. For example, remember the Eagle Premiere of the early 90s? It was a very blocky 3-box sedan, yet was more aerodynamically efficient than the swoopy Taurus against which it competed. You truly cannot judge a book by its cover.

 

That's funny. I wish that were the case, but I'm afraid you "heard" incorrectly, at least on the 100 HP deal. They do indeed have what amounts to 4 cats, but the HP loss is only around 10.

As for the inefficiency of the 4.6, I suggest doing an actual comparison of actual gas mileage ratings. You will find the the A4's are essentially the same.

The LS1 M6 gets 1 mpg better in town, almost certainly due to the skip-shift feature that everybody disables pronto (including me when I had my 99 T/A). It gets 2 mpg better on the highway, likely thanks to the .50 6th gear vice the .67 5th gear of the T45/3650.

That makes the total car package more fuel efficient (with the manual) but not necessarily the LS1 engine itself.

 

When you remove the cats from a new mustang and put on an x-pipe, you only pick up about 10-20HP. Where is the other 80-90?

In regards to the styling - I'll put my money on this car being MORE aerodynamic than the current. The blunt nose doesn't seem to matter - many highly aerodynamic luxury cars have one. One thing that does matter a lot that not many people consider is the smoothness of the underside of the car...

 

Your jumping to conclusions.

You think it's un--areodynamic and therefore will be a gas guzzzler??

I really doubt Ford wants too add a gas guzzler price to the car---it would definately hurt sales.

Even if it were less aeodynamic then the curent car it wouldn't amke it a gas guzzler.

 

Don't want to bring up 3rd vs. 4th Gen again....but, just to make a point about drag coefficient.

The 4th gen looks more efficient than a more "blocky" (for lack of a better term) 3rd gen, however the drag coefficients are basically identicle.

 

Interesting thoghts.

I lightly studied aerodymanics waaaaay back when I first started design, and had forgetten some elements that were pointed out here (the underside, etc.). I remember the 3rd and 4th gens were similar Cds (0.34 Cd?) and was surprised. Plus if memory of the pics is correct, the new one seems to have much more subtle side vents and featrues, which will be a benefit.

So I guess we'll wait and see. I'd be interested in the Cd comparo tho.

 

not sure about 4th gen, but the most aerodynamic thirdgen was the 1984 Trans Am with optional ground effects (W62) and optional Hi-Tech-Turbo wheels (N78) with a Cd of 0.299

typically thirdgens were in the 0.32 - 0.34 range for Firebirds. Camaros were slightly more frictional.