Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As you're probably aware by now, I freakin' love cars. To me they are the most under appreciated marvels of machinery and human ingenuity. While you are simply a putting your foot on the gas pedal and and turning the steering wheel there are literally hundreds of moving metal parts all working together in perfect harmony to transport you efficiently from point A to point B. While most people think even today that mechanics are nothing more than grease monkeys who turn wrenches, the job of a modern day mechanic entails professional knowledge and comprehension of state of the art computer systems which control most modern day cars.

Now here's the thing about a car's performance. There's a lot more than just the engine's horse power. Horse power is relative to the weight of the car. Which is why pick up trucks, and particularly heavy duty pick up trucks have large powerful engines. It all boils down to a power to weight ratio. How much weight each horse in your engine has to pull to get that car moving.

Take for example my 66 Mustang. It's body is made up of sheet metal, and the humble, yet potent 3.3L 6 cylinder engine is made of pure die cast steel. That's a heavy block! Yet, with all it's hardened steel it only weighs in around 2600 lbs. That's perfect for a sports car. Light weight, nimble, and quick off the line! In the 60s this spawned a new genre of cars: The Pony Cars. Pony cars were light weight American sports cars that were breed for performance. Ford's Mustang, Chevy's Camaro, Dodge's Challenger just to name a few. They also met the following criteria:
~Affordable (Around the $2500 price range. Remember, this was the 60s)
~Advertised towards the Youth
~Stylized and several available options (Such as radio, power steering, and AC. See how far we've come? )

They were an instant hit. People every where wanted their own Pony Car. And why wouldn't they? They were stylish, affordable, sporty, and most importantly RELIABLE cars! Sadly, though, as the new generations of these American icons came along the cars became heavier and more expensive. Sadly many of them declined in sales, and their respective manufacturers took them out of production. By the mid 90s all that was left of the American icons was the original pony itself, the Mustang.

Nowadays as we can see, the demand for pure breed performance machines have once again risen! The Challenger, Camaro, and even the Dodge Charger have made a triumphant return from retirement! ...However, their Golden Years haven't been to kind to them:
Both the Challenger and Charger weigh in at 4000+!!!
The Camaro: 3750lbs!!!
And the Mustang weighing in the least at.... 3500 lbs (GT model)

Wow! These ponies are.... um, not ponies anymore!! What happened?! Why are they so heavy? Today cars are made with light weight plastics such as urethane and the engine are made of light weight aluminum! There's simply no excuse! I know that many advancements have been made and new computer systems and driver aids have been added, but that doesn't account for 1500lbs!! Where's all this weight coming from?!

Well here's the answer: Why Cars Have Gotten so Heavy

Yep, nothing says SUCCESS like good ole government intervention! Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big safety-nut when it comes to dangerous things, such as high speed vehicles and firearms, but I think we've gone OVERBOARD. There's nothing more destructive and chaotic than two 3500lbs+ vehicles slamming into each other at high speeds (35 MPH+) but there is only so much you can do to stop bad drivers and road hazards from killing people. The physics of a car crash is mind blowing. You may think 10MPH is slow, but go try running at 10 MPH and have your buddy smack you in the face with a 2x4. It won't be pretty.

I think automobile manufacturers need to trim the fat off cars and DOT (Department of Transportation) needs to stop bitching like an over reacting mother who dreads seeing her son scrape his knees.

Well cars are also getting bigger now. Park that vintage pony next to the new stang and you will see what I mean. Most new cars also still use sheet metal for the body, not sure why they never did switch to plastic like the old saturns. Corvette is still fiberglass though.

Oh yeah, just the look of cars today is big and fat!!

Whenever I go to a store, people like to park their modern Mustangs next to mine. The pony enjoys it too, she's such an attention whore!

There is definitely something to be said about the increased weight of the vehicle itself, but there is also a need for heavier vehicles, at least in the US, because of the heavier occupants that they carry. Its been well documented, and pretty well talked about around here how americans are getting huge these days.


And some of the cars you mentioned, particularly the Challender and Charger weren't light to begin with.. the Challenger in 1970 weighed 3600 pounds, so really the weight added was mostly due to the times, and required BS that goes into a vehicle now.

Well, where I live now, there are so many big trucks everywhere, I feel somewhat intimidated in my civic. These people are just everyday citizens, why do they need such big trucks?

Even my 93 MR2 weighs 2657 stock. That's just a little two seater. Mostly I think it's an increase in size coupled with full steal frames and bodies.

Oh yeah, that's another issue which I didn't mention.

Race cars are like race horses in many ways. One of 'em is that both of these pure bred racers need their occupants to be light. Jockeys are required to be very thin so that their steed has to work less.

Now, I'm not a NASCAR fan, but there is a lot more going on than most people think. In NASCAR all cars are held to many strict standards to make all cars on an equal playing field and make it mostly dependent on the driver's ability. Take for example Tony Stewart. He seems to be one of the most famous drivers, and I even remember seeing him in a commercial about some car product, the point is he seemed a little over weight. In a race where all the cars are around 3500 lbs, it seems that you wouldn't want to add anymore weight, including yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Even my 93 MR2 weighs 2657 stock. That's just a little two seater. Mostly I think it's an increase in size coupled with full steal frames and bodies.

Nah, the frame is the skeleton of the car and because of that it needs to be a very tough steel. They've always been that way.

It's all the safety equipment and BS emission garbage they put into cars nowadays.

Nah, the frame is the skeleton of the car and because of that it needs to be a very tough steel. They've always been that way.

MR2 has no frame. Unibody Monocoque.

It's all the safety equipment and BS emission garbage they put into cars nowadays.

Nah, it's size and construction mostly. Look at a Porsche 911 gt3. Light as hell.

DickBandit wrote:

Now, I'm not a NASCAR fan, but there is a lot more going on than most people think. In NASCAR all cars are held to many strict standards to make all cars on an equal playing field and make it mostly dependent on the driver's ability. Take for example Tony Stewart. He seems to be one of the most famous drivers, and I even remember seeing him in a commercial about some car product, the point is he seemed a little over weight. In a race where all the cars are around 3500 lbs, it seems that you wouldn't want to add anymore weight, including yourself.

Most racing series that i have watched, with the exception of motorcycles use some form or other of ballast. all cars must weigh the same before and after the race (fuel and liquids not withstanding), so the heavier the driver is, the less ballast is required in the car.

And as another poster mentioned, being surrounded by huge trucks.. When my wife and i bought our Impreza, i found that if i was driving near dark or at night, without my fog lights on, i was almost run off the road, EVERY SINGLE TIME, and it was almost universally the big trucks (or it was beater, POS sedans with 24" wheels, like what you would see in a rap video)

Which brings up another point.. One of my buddies has a car where he put modestly large wheels on it (20'), and then complained that it rode like crap. I then had to explain to him what the tire was actually doing in the grand scheme of things, and how the ride quality was effected by the stupid stuff he did to the car. A couple months after putting said wheels onto his car, one of them cracked after hitting a bump, and he now has 18" wheels, which is really, much better on the car's components than the larger diameter wheels.

Look at the new camaro its something like 6 inches wider and 8 inches longer than a 67. Don't get me started on unibodys, they are worthless for a street car.

voryn15 wrote:Look at the new camaro its something like 6 inches wider and 8 inches longer than a 67. Don't get me started on unibodys, they are worthless for a street car.

Then why does almost every super car have one?

A couple months after putting said wheels onto his car, one of them cracked after hitting a bump, and he now has 18" wheels, which is really, much better on the car's components than the larger diameter wheels.

Low profiles look nice but they are garbage for racing.

Because they are super cars. im talking about everyday cars not a $200,000 status symbol

DickBandit wrote:Well here's the answer: Why Cars Have Gotten so Heavy

Yep, nothing says SUCCESS like good ole government intervention!

You didn't actually read that article, did you?

"At the end of the day, though, safety and emissions brings a car nowhere near 1000 pounds. So let’s look at where the rest of the fat might be."

The blogger then went on to describe what has actually created all that weight;
"Larger wheels, tires and brakes together can easily add 250 pounds to a vehicle."
"transmissions are heavier"
"Where the real additional girth is now is in the interior – and it has nothing to do with safety or emissions"... going on to list bigger seats with all kinds of gadgets attached to them, more complex aircon, tvs and all kinds of displays and techno gizmos.

The article plainly stated the exact opposite of what you claimed, that safety and environmental concerns account for very little of the increase in weight, instead the weight increase is down to silly accessories that the market, not the government, has demanded. He finally concluded by saying we should "keep the safety and emissions controls like the vitamins we need each day".

So, honestly, did you read the article you linked to?

voryn15 wrote:Because they are super cars. im talking about everyday cars not a $200,000 status symbol

My MR2 isn't a $200,000 status symbol. It's a budget pocket racer designed by lotus.

I understand that trucks need frames, but your average car. Not really.

Andrew1975 wrote:My MR2 isn't a $200,000 status symbol. It's a budget pocket racer designed by lotus.

I understand that trucks need frames, but your average car. Not really.

Isn't a frame the absolute best core of every car's crash protection. Wouldn't you be far better off getting rid of airbags before you got rid of airbags?

sebster wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:My MR2 isn't a $200,000 status symbol. It's a budget pocket racer designed by lotus.

I understand that trucks need frames, but your average car. Not really.

Isn't a frame the absolute best core of every car's crash protection. Wouldn't you be far better off getting rid of airbags before you got rid of airbags?

Well the theory is that a well designed uniframe with crumple zones is safer than a frame. The frame adds unnecessary weight, which is bad for a sport car, weight also increases potential energy in a crash, causing more damage. Combine the crumple zone with seat belts and airbags and you have a pretty safe vehicle. Most REAL race cars (sorry nascar) are built this way and faitalities and bodily harm are very low.

The down side is that almost any good crash totals your car because it crumples around the passengers. Framed cars might just need some new body panels......and new occupants.

The mr2 dosent need a unibody. most unibody cars would be better served with a frame, look at the late 80's camaro's no need for a unibody frame. In most cases it is cheaper to make and causes you to spend more money to for repairs/easier to total a unibody.

voryn15 wrote: The mr2 dosent need a unibody. most unibody cars would be better served with a frame, look at the late 80's camaro's no need for a unibody frame. In most cases it is cheaper to make and causes you to spend more money to for repairs/easier to total a unibody.

Unibody is actually more expensive because of all the design work that goes into it. Yes repairs are much more expensive, but the savings in weight (especially in a car that isn't designed to just go straight) is worth it. Considering the performance the MR2 provides with a very modest engine, I think it was a good call. Weight is a killer in non straight line cars. Unibody also benefits from creating a more rigid body, plus you are never going to torque a unibody frame. My buddy boosted his 69 GTO and ended up with a bent frame.

Andrew1975 wrote:Well the theory is that a well designed uniframe with crumple zones is safer than a frame. The frame adds unnecessary weight, which is bad for a sport car, weight also increases potential energy in a crash, causing more damage. Combine the crumple zone with seat belts and airbags and you have a pretty safe vehicle. Most REAL race cars (sorry nascar) are built this way and faitalities and bodily harm are very low.

The down side is that almost any good crash totals your car because it crumples around the passengers. Framed cars might just need some new body panels......and new occupants.

Interesting, thanks for that.

sebster wrote:

DickBandit wrote:Well here's the answer: Why Cars Have Gotten so Heavy

Yep, nothing says SUCCESS like good ole government intervention!

You didn't actually read that article, did you?

"At the end of the day, though, safety and emissions brings a car nowhere near 1000 pounds. So let’s look at where the rest of the fat might be."

The blogger then went on to describe what has actually created all that weight;
"Larger wheels, tires and brakes together can easily add 250 pounds to a vehicle."
"transmissions are heavier"
"Where the real additional girth is now is in the interior – and it has nothing to do with safety or emissions"... going on to list bigger seats with all kinds of gadgets attached to them, more complex aircon, tvs and all kinds of displays and techno gizmos.

The article plainly stated the exact opposite of what you claimed, that safety and environmental concerns account for very little of the increase in weight, instead the weight increase is down to silly accessories that the market, not the government, has demanded. He finally concluded by saying we should "keep the safety and emissions controls like the vitamins we need each day".

So, honestly, did you read the article you linked to?

I read the article last week Should have read it again.
That's true. the transmission in my 66 Mustang is only a three speed. Nowadays cars have usually 7 (Including reverse and overdrive gear)

But in any case. Larger diameter wheels are some part of it. I really don't get it, why do people want stupidly large wheels? It's terrible, when you increase the wheel size the car has too compensate for that, usually hurting your performance.
And because of regulations by DOT there is so much "crunch space" a car has to have nowadays which does lead to bigger cars.

I did read that article, however most accessories included in cars today really aren't that heavy. I've already planned out what I plan to do to a 2005 V6 Mustang I plan to use purely for autocross. Removing non-essential items such as power steering, AC, radio, and most useless of em all: Cruise control! (seriously, why would I want the car to drive itself? That's bad, that means I'm less engaged while driving!!) all of that will account for maybe, MAYBE 100 lbs. A base model V6 weighs around 3500lbs.

Still the issue is:
Cars are made of lighter weight material today. So where's all this extra stuff coming from?

Andrew1975 wrote:

voryn15 wrote: The mr2 dosent need a unibody. most unibody cars would be better served with a frame, look at the late 80's camaro's no need for a unibody frame. In most cases it is cheaper to make and causes you to spend more money to for repairs/easier to total a unibody.

Unibody is actually more expensive because of all the design work that goes into it. Yes repairs are much more expensive, but the savings in weight (especially in a car that isn't designed to just go straight) is worth it. Considering the performance the MR2 provides with a very modest engine, I think it was a good call. Weight is a killer in non straight line cars. Unibody also benefits from creating a more rigid body, plus you are never going to torque a unibody frame. My buddy boosted his 69 GTO and ended up with a bent frame.

I guess I should leave the mr2 out of this lol. I still dont like them for the american muscle, or for everday drivers like the taurus or cobalt but thats the old mechanic in me talking.

I know what you are saying, I love old muscle cars too. My friends Judge is a blast. Hell I love 4 wheeling too. I prefer more maneuverable cars though, I love apexing through a set of turns, or drifting, but something has to be said about pure brute horsepower.

The new muscle cars, I'm on the fence with, they are good looking, but BIG, and HEAVY. They used old school tech to keep the costs down and for ease of production. The FORD GT on the other hand,,,oh baby. Plus the romance of working on them yourself and swapping engines is gone unless you know your way around a computer and have the equipment and software to do it.

Going straight fast is a completely different equipment requirement and skill set than quickly dancing around turns.

I'm curious what your other objections to unibody are though. I understand the cost and difficulty of repair factor, was there anything else? My buddy has 2 Corvairs just to give Ralph Nadder the finger. Unsafe at any speed my butt.

It is reasonably entertaining the relative power/capacity levels that American cars have to European cars; from what I gather you use much higher capacity engines yet develop a lot less power from them than smaller capacity European engines.

Also, do you really need so many trucks? I understand that you like to think you are rugged outdoorsmen living in the wild west, but you are not. You work in an office and wear a tie - get a more sensible car

This also goes for 4x4's here in the UK - you've never even seen a field as you live in the city; I know speed bumps are pretty insane, but you don't need a giant 4x4 off road monster to tackle them

Having driven small and large cars, powerful and powerless cars, I have to say that it is sooo much cheaper running smaller cars

More money to spend on other things, like beer, or models

SilverMK2 wrote:It is reasonably entertaining the relative power/capacity levels that American cars have to European cars; from what I gather you use much higher capacity engines yet develop a lot less power from them than smaller capacity European engines.

This is subjective, you get more power from smaller engines because you turbocharge everything. In America turbocharging is limited to performance cars. Turbo is great but it's expensive and relatively unreliable. We don't need the fuel savings of turbo so much because we have cheaper gas.

Also, do you really need so many trucks? I understand that you like to think you are rugged outdoorsmen living in the wild west, but you are not. You work in an office and wear a tie - get a more sensible car

Don't get me started on this. Every time I see a sexy little lady in a truck I cry. Yeah I know you feel safer, but you make me nervous because now you are too relaxed and you drive a car you can't really control. I'm in my little 2 seater keep away from me. AND LEARN TO PARK IN BETWEEN THE GD YELLOW LINES. If you can't drive it please don't.....and put the cell phone DOWN!

This also goes for 4x4's here in the UK - you've never even seen a field as you live in the city; I know speed bumps are pretty insane, but you don't need a giant 4x4 off road monster to tackle them

Same rant as above from me.

Having driven small and large cars, powerful and powerless cars, I have to say that it is sooo much cheaper running smaller cars

Yep, my MR2 gets like 30MPG, it's quick, fun and economical. Although I'd consider modding it by putting a 6 cylinder in for more power, seen it driven it, LOVED IT. I can get the turbo for it cheap from the junkyard......because it was crap, kicked in at the wrong time and caused a lot of accidents.

More money to spend on other things, like beer, or models

DickBandit wrote:I read the article last week Should have read it again.

Is cool.

But in any case. Larger diameter wheels are some part of it. I really don't get it, why do people want stupidly large wheels? It's terrible, when you increase the wheel size the car has too compensate for that, usually hurting your performance.

I think lots of folk prefer looks over performance. In this case the extra big tyres also look stupid, but certain folk think they're cool. That said, performance is a pretty odd thing to want, considering most of us spend our driving time grinding through traffic to work.

As such, if we were sensible we'd want fuel efficient cars that are comfortable and safe... performance and looks would be irrelevant.

And because of regulations by DOT there is so much "crunch space" a car has to have nowadays which does lead to bigger cars.

Possibly, but it isn't as though consumers are demanding the minimum size government will allow their sedans to be. SUVs are getting bigger and bigger every year because that's what the market wants, nothing to do with government. I'd think sedans are likewise getting bigger because we like having more room in our cars.

Removing non-essential items such as power steering, AC, radio, and most useless of em all: Cruise control! (seriously, why would I want the car to drive itself? That's bad, that means I'm less engaged while driving!!)

Actually, cruise control is one I do blame on government. With all the damn speed cameras around everywhere the best thing to do on a long stretch of is to get to the right speed and hit the cruise control, otherwise there's a tendency to slowly increase speed.

all of that will account for maybe, MAYBE 100 lbs. A base model V6 weighs around 3500lbs.

Maybe, I don't know, I don't really know all that much about cars. The blogger your linked to thought it was the result of miscellaneous knick knacks and extra stuff, although as far as I know he's just some blogger and could be way off the mark.

Do we even know for sure that cars have increased by 1,000 pounds across the board? Sure, these pony cars have, but couldn't that be the result of those cars being reintroduced and missing the point on what made them successful the first time around? Is it true that other cars have increased in weight so much, to an extent that isn't explained by the relative increase in size?

SilverMK2 wrote:Also, do you really need so many trucks? I understand that you like to think you are rugged outdoorsmen living in the wild west, but you are not. You work in an office and wear a tie - get a more sensible car

I'm half and half on this.
Being from Louisiana trucks are all over the damn place. Louisiana is know as the Sportsman's Paradise. So most people have a reason to need a bed for transporting large, heavy objects to and from places.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I also spent some time on Fort Bragg. There were tons of cowboy boot/hat wearing punks who I KNOW did not come from a rural area. It's another fad like the "geek" look so many empty, souless, drones are participating in today.

Andrew1975 wrote:This is subjective, you get more power from smaller engines because you turbocharge everything. In America turbocharging is limited to performance cars. Turbo is great but it's expensive and relatively unreliable. We don't need the fuel savings of turbo so much because we have cheaper gas.

Isn't that a good reason to tax gas more heavily?

sebster wrote:

DickBandit wrote:I read the article last week Should have read it again.

Is cool.

But in any case. Larger diameter wheels are some part of it. I really don't get it, why do people want stupidly large wheels? It's terrible, when you increase the wheel size the car has too compensate for that, usually hurting your performance.

I think lots of folk prefer looks over performance. In this case the extra big tyres also look stupid, but certain folk think they're cool. That said, performance is a pretty odd thing to want, considering most of us spend our driving time grinding through traffic to work.

As such, if we were sensible we'd want fuel efficient cars that are comfortable and safe... performance and looks would be irrelevant.

And because of regulations by DOT there is so much "crunch space" a car has to have nowadays which does lead to bigger cars.

Possibly, but it isn't as though consumers are demanding the minimum size government will allow their sedans to be. SUVs are getting bigger and bigger every year because that's what the market wants, nothing to do with government. I'd think sedans are likewise getting bigger because we like having more room in our cars.

Removing non-essential items such as power steering, AC, radio, and most useless of em all: Cruise control! (seriously, why would I want the car to drive itself? That's bad, that means I'm less engaged while driving!!)

Actually, cruise control is one I do blame on government. With all the damn speed cameras around everywhere the best thing to do on a long stretch of is to get to the right speed and hit the cruise control, otherwise there's a tendency to slowly increase speed.

all of that will account for maybe, MAYBE 100 lbs. A base model V6 weighs around 3500lbs.

Maybe, I don't know, I don't really know all that much about cars. The blogger your linked to thought it was the result of miscellaneous knick knacks and extra stuff, although as far as I know he's just some blogger and could be way off the mark.

Do we even know for sure that cars have increased by 1,000 pounds across the board? Sure, these pony cars have, but couldn't that be the result of those cars being reintroduced and missing the point on what made them successful the first time around? Is it true that other cars have increased in weight so much, to an extent that isn't explained by the relative increase in size?

That's another issue I have.

Car performance, like video games today, are becoming dominated by the voice of the people who don't care about the true potential and performance of what made so many cars so great.
Yes, back in the 60s Mustangs were oriented towards the everyday driver. HOWEVER, people loved the Mustang for its reliability as well as its sleek design. The reliability of that car is what has kept it alive through the decline of sports cars world-wide.

Nowadays the automobile market is dominated by the voice of soccer-moms who want bigger cars for no damn reason. Hippies who don't realize that cars ARE NOT the biggest cause of "Green House Gases!!" (*cough cough* Volcanoes, Cow Farts *cough cough*) And retards who think that bolting, mind you, BOLTING an obnoxious exhaust tip on their car improves performance by 5hp and also increases their penis by 2".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:This is subjective, you get more power from smaller engines because you turbocharge everything. In America turbocharging is limited to performance cars. Turbo is great but it's expensive and relatively unreliable. We don't need the fuel savings of turbo so much because we have cheaper gas.

Isn't that a good reason to tax gas more heavily?

SSH SSSSSSH!!!!!
Sebster, don't give them any ideas!! They may be listening!!!

Do we even know for sure that cars have increased by 1,000 pounds across the board? Sure, these pony cars have, but couldn't that be the result of those cars being reintroduced and missing the point on what made them successful the first time around? Is it true that other cars have increased in weight so much, to an extent that isn't explained by the relative increase in size?

It's mostly due to size really. They have not made these cars to be performance cars strictly. Much like the old muscle cars they are just large cars with big engines. Most of the old cars were just your moms car with a big engine sports package, that's what these are basically. They are built for comfort first, performance is secondary. They are looking for big markets and big sales, you don't really get that with strictly performance cars. True performance cars, don't sell well because they are too expensive, too uncomfortable and too basic, you can't sell them to the average guy with a wife and kids who can only afford one car.

Ford makes a stripped down performance mustang, I can't think of the name right now. It's got a supped up engine and manual tranny, the ride is harsh, it only has two seats and they are uncomfortable for a long drive, there is no stereo or air conditioning, there is also no sound dampening material in the body or doors. It's pure performance, but it will cost you.

Also to note more gears adds almost no weight anymore.

Isn't that a good reason to tax gas more heavily?

No, our gas is cheap because the US pays for it in different ways, we fight for it, plus we buy in volume baby. I prefer cheap gas to turbo charging. Its more of a front end expense, plus they used to be very unreliable and cause control issues, they have gotten much more reliable in the past few years. The fed is currently pushing gas mileage regulation right now, turbo may be a requirement for all the HP heads soon enough anyway. Gas tax though is pretty hard, America is a big and spread out country. If that tax went directly to a fund for good high speed public mass transit I might be on board. But to punish people like me that already drive a 4 banger......meh.

^
When did they make a two-seater Mustang?
The only Mustang variants I can think of are:
Coupe (base model)
GT (V8 model)
Shelby
Boss 302
Mach 1 (70s era)
Fastback (60s era GT)

Speaking of smaller, turbo-charged engines. Ford plans to develop a new Mustang model for 2014 that will feature a twin-turbo charged V6 (maybe even a 4 cylinder!) engine. Mainly for improved fuel efficiency.