Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Mustang Forums
2015+ S550 Mustangs
2015+ S550 Mustang Talk
The Ecoboost Disappointment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DHG1078" data-source="post: 14203652" data-attributes="member: 65442"><p>Agree 100%</p><p></p><p>It feels like 1974 all over again (I wasn't there lol). With ever stricter emissions and efficiency standards, Ford needed to do something big, err i mean smaller. We all know the Mustang II was much smaller and weighed in at 400 pounds less than the 1973 model. It also had the first ever 4 cyl. Yes it was incredibly under powered, and underwhelming to drive. But god dam did that thing we despise today [arguably] save the mustang. Ford sold over 385k mustangs in 1974. </p><p></p><p>We may not like it, but you can't be a mustang purist if you discount any credibility to a 4cyl in the mustang. The 4cyl is important to mustang history and it will do wonders to meet government standards and (no pun intended) boost sales, I hope lol.</p><p></p><p>Will I buy a 4 cyl mustang? Probably not. Not because I hate the idea of a 4 cyl, but because I just really like a v8 and I have an economy car so I don't need the mileage. the turbo 4 makes far more sense to far more people than a v8 does anyways. Without the v6 and 4 cyl mustangs, we wouldn't have a mustang today.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DHG1078, post: 14203652, member: 65442"] Agree 100% It feels like 1974 all over again (I wasn't there lol). With ever stricter emissions and efficiency standards, Ford needed to do something big, err i mean smaller. We all know the Mustang II was much smaller and weighed in at 400 pounds less than the 1973 model. It also had the first ever 4 cyl. Yes it was incredibly under powered, and underwhelming to drive. But god dam did that thing we despise today [arguably] save the mustang. Ford sold over 385k mustangs in 1974. We may not like it, but you can't be a mustang purist if you discount any credibility to a 4cyl in the mustang. The 4cyl is important to mustang history and it will do wonders to meet government standards and (no pun intended) boost sales, I hope lol. Will I buy a 4 cyl mustang? Probably not. Not because I hate the idea of a 4 cyl, but because I just really like a v8 and I have an economy car so I don't need the mileage. the turbo 4 makes far more sense to far more people than a v8 does anyways. Without the v6 and 4 cyl mustangs, we wouldn't have a mustang today. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Mustang Forums
2015+ S550 Mustangs
2015+ S550 Mustang Talk
The Ecoboost Disappointment
Top