Just a week ago, we called on Ford to revive the SVO Mustang. And now, a "reliable source" has told Garage 419 that Ford is considering a revival of a Mustang SVO. OK, not the actual Fox-body ‘Stang of the eighties. But the same idea translated for today. We're talking about a 300hp EcoBoost four cylinder engine mated to a six-speed stick; a combination that could shave as much as five hundred pounds off a current GT. Much of that diet would come off the front end, improving front/rear weight balance and handling. How about an IRS back there while we're at it? No? Damn. Anyway, the new SVO's EPA numbers could easily beat the GT by some 25 percent or more. Just the ticket for the times: a good-handling ‘Stang with wallet-friendly mileage. Dropping oil prices helped kill the last SVO; sounds like the obverse is true now. Weird.
Find Reviews by Make:
I had a dream about my dad’s long departed ’86 T-Bird Turbo Coupe last night. Weird.
I’d love to see / test drive one. I’d even consider giving up my GT’s V8 soundtrack under the right circumstances (Mustang loyalty rebate?).
However, I stand by my comment under the other article, it wont be a sales success.
Highly unlikely and I really don’t think it’s a good idea.
The STis and Speed3s owned by my friends can’t best high teens in the city for consumption, what makes anyone think a big, boosted Mustang will actually save any fuel? Especially when the V8 manual models already average high teens in the city beating on all eight cylinders and making all the right kind of sounds.
The Mustang’s heritage also isn’t four cylinder engines.
The last time Ford offered them not many people opted for them. The SVO wasn’t popular at all and hardly any Mustnag with any four cylinder engine is around today. It’s quite easy to find a V8 of that age though. That’s because it’s what Mustang people want and what the car really stands for.
If Ford wants to offer desirable four cylinder performance cars they need to create one designed for it or make a hot Focus like they already offer in Europe.
It’s the same over at GM. The idea of a four cylinder turbo Camaro is ridiculous. They already have the Kappa roadsters and Cobalt SS flying the four cylinder performance banner for people that want them.
Interesting, but what moniker would it use? SVO I don’t think would work, given it’s the predecessor to SVT.
TriShield: I really don’t think it’s a good idea.
The STis and Speed3s owned by my friends can’t best high teens in the city for consumption,
It really depends on driving style. There’s no question that a turbo four CAN get substantially better mileage than a V8. Less weight, less internal friction, operating at a better thermodynamic range (ICE engines are least efficient at lazy engine loads), etc. I could get terrific mileage (30+) in my Turbo Coupe T-Bird, if I stayed out of the boost.
In any case, the EPA test works to a smaller engine’s advantage, because it doesn’t demand rapid accelerations. And that will be the compelling reason Ford (and Chevy) will quite likely put turbo fours in their pony cars.
TriShield, my best friend has a 2008 STI. When he drives very conservatively in the city and on the highway, he gets 25/30. It’s all about speed and smoothness.
The 80’s SVO Mustangs sales lagged not only because of the 4 cylinder stigma.
Sales were soft because the SVO’s were expensive!
Back then you had to pony up about $5,000 more for an SVO over a V8 GT, which translates to an over $9,000 difference in today’s dollars.
Is Ford capable of coming up with a new variation of the Mustang that does not dredge up something from the past? The Mustang has survived because it has been able to adapt to the times. The original Mustang was perfect for 1964. The Mustang II was the right for 1974 even though it is maligned in hindsight. The SVO was the right idea for 1984. It will be 2010 if and when this new version is released – call it something that fits 2010 – Not SVO or Cobra III or Probe II or please not another Shelby variant. And don’t use those Tron inspired gauges from 1984 with the grid pattern.
I live in the Phoenix metro area, there’s no “open roads” here.
My friend just got rid of his STi for an Elise. The STi averaged about 16mpg. No word on what he’s getting with the Elise yet. The guy we hang out with that has the Speed3 gets 18mpg. Those are eye-watering numbers for a four cyinder engine.
Now contrast it with this. Another one of our friends has a current Mustang GT with a manual. He averages 17-19mpg. I have an LS2 GTO with a manual right now and I get 16-19mpg. My former ride was a Grand National, the 1980s six cylinder turbocharged wonder car. Three of those years I drove it here in Phoenix. My average fuel consumption? 12-14mpg.
Sure your fuel consumption is going to vary depending on where you life and the conditions as well as driving style but what’s the point of buying a Mustang if you don’t drive it and enjoy it like a Mustang?
If you want performance out of any car you are going to pay for it no matter what powers it.
The Mustang hasn’t survived because it “conforms” to the times. Just like the Corvette it’s remained true to it’s heritage from the beginning. It has always stood for affordable V8 power for the masses. That formula cannot be changed just as you cannot change the taste of Coca-Cola “for the times”. People know what the Mustang is and have an expectation of it when they hear the name.
The car is an icon and it stands for what it is. Ford can’t redefine the car. Nobody who wants a four cylinder car is going to be jonesing for a Mustang, just as they won’t be thinking Camaros when it comes to four cylinder engines either.
If both companies want to play that game they had better come up with cars designed for them with names dedicated to them. Look at the Neon SRT4 as an example. Chrysler knocked the enthusaist market dead with that car and it had no famous name or ghosts to the past to live up to, it stood for four cylinder turbo performance.
Great idea for an entry-level model (instead of the V6)
because, lets be honest, a turbo-four can’t match the smoothness, power delivery, nor torque curve of a great V8
People say why would anyone buy a 4 cylinder turbo Camaro or Mustang. I ask you, can you name me some rwd turbo 4 bangers on the market? I don’t even think there is one currently on the market. Wouldn’t these vehicles be positioned perfectly for the 15-25 y/o market?
And you can’t compare these two vehicles to the SVO. The SVO would be around $35,000-$40,000 in today’s dollars. In GM’s case, it’s 4 cylinder turbo will be a $20k base model.
Sounds sweet to me, small highly tuned motors have always appealed to me. The 67 & 68 z-28 was cool for that reason, a small (for that time) 302 v-8 that could run with some 427’s.
From the car mag tests ( I still have) at the time, SVO Mustangs suffered a bit from an uneven power band typical of turbos back then. Current turbos don’s suffer this problem.
It would be really cool to see how much better the MPG’s would be vs the v-8
I ask you, can you name me some rwd turbo 4 bangers on the market? I don’t even think there is one currently on the market.
The supercharged Lotus Exige comes closest.
… you could also get a slightly-used Mazdaspeed Miata
The turbo-4 isn’t gonna come cheap. Definitely not V6 Mustang cheap and probably no better than a V8 GT.
I’m waiting for the next gen V8s from Ford with some of the techy goodies (direct injection) of the EcoBoost family.
Combined with the fact that the Mustang (cough, Torino) is a gigantic yacht (not an Import-wannabe) this new SVO will tank just like the old one did.
Todays turbocharged engines are a world away from those we had back in the early 1980s Back than we did not have things like variable valve timing, direct injection, advanced electronic engine control, advanced EFI, variable inlet turbochargers, multi-valve cylinder head, and durable aluminum engine blocks. Today a “new” SVO can be more than a match for a Mustang GT in every measure outside of maybe the exhaust note.
To think that Ford will reutrn to what was a obvious course of future developement in the early 1980s speaks volumes of how Ford simply dropped the ball for the sake of being “CHEAP” and short-sighted.
One would think that there was a some kind of giagantic easy to exploit petroleum find in the mid to late 1980s that allowed the domestics to forget all about petro being a limited finite resource that would only get more and more expensive in the future.
Once again Ford will be faced with the “V8” dilemma regarding the Mustang and its core fans. If a Mustang is only “good” (as a performance vehicle) with a v8 under the hood than Ford might as well pull the plug on any future Mustang developement.
Look fellas, like it or not America is being forced to join the party that the rest of the world has be dancing at for the last 40 years, let me correct that and say forever. The Altar of wasteful excess is collapsing as we sit here and think about filling up our V8 powered personal transportation devices! Burning extra gas for the sake of “fuck it” aint gonna cut it for the vast majority of us out here in the USA.
My wife will not lets me turn-off the cable service to fuel a hotrod every weekend so I MUST COMPROMISE if I wish to enjoy driving in the future. A lighter car with a smaller engine is just what the doctor perscribed!
And if a turbo 4 can put out over 300hp and 300ft lbs + you gotta admit that it does have the MUSCLE! It is just in a smaller, lighter package.
My WRX gets between 7 and 31mpg. It’s all about driving style. The guys getting bad gas mileage in the turbo vehicles need to learn to stay out of the boost. Hard on the boost and the engine runs rich…very rich. Partly to keep it cool, partly for knock prevention, etc. But hard on the boost is hard on the gas tank and wallet.
Rolling hills and highway garner fantastic gas mileage in the WRX (taller gears than the STi by the way…yes, the WRX 5th is slightly taller than STi 6th.) Naturally aspirated cars just don’t get the same sort of fuel consumption rules.
It’s actually not that easy and takes a lot of focus and concentration to get good gas mileage in the turbo4 vehicles (Evo, WRX/STi, Speed3, etc). But actually paying attention to one’s driving style is key.
I’ve said it before and I’ll harp on it again now: Adding a real-time and long-term fuel-consumption display to vehicles would make a huge dent in folks’ habits just because most are not willing, not patient enough, or not analytical enough in their approach to driving (i.e. zombies!) to figure it out on their own. Why do you think Prius drivers all get horrible gas mileage at first, then claim “It got a lot better once I learned how to drive it!” It has a computer telling them that what they are doing in traffic makes for crappy gas mileage.
If the government really wanted to nanny-state/legislate something useful regarding consumption into existence, the FCD (fuel consumption display) would be it. :)
It could just be a continuation of their “heritage” Mustangs (GT/CS, Mach 1) In that sense they wouldn’t have to sell many and what they do sell would be priced above the GT.
Hopefully they won’t have metric wheels this time.
SVOs didn’t have metric wheels: 16×7″
If this is true, and the weight loss estimates are accurate, sign me up.
“I ask you, can you name me some rwd turbo 4 bangers on the market? I don’t even think there is one currently on the market.”
In the guzzling USA, that is probably true at the moment. However, if you head on over to Europe, you’ll see several 4-cylinder Mercedes C-class and E-class offerings with a turbo four diesel. If you extend “turbo” to also include supercharged engines, you’ll see C, E, CLK, and SLK offerings. The previous generation C230 Kompressor sold here; it was a zippy enough engine and could easily see 30 MPG on the highway.
If you stretch RWD to be AWD, then Audi/VW has several items for sale.
Ford could use the marketing slogan: “Same number of valves as most of the Mustang V8s!”
AlmostFamous :
Pontiac Solstice GXP, Saturn Sky Red Line. There ya go.
My friend with the Elise is averaging 27mpg city with it, a huge improvement over the STi. Impressive.
Also when I had my Grand National it returned 25-30mpg on the freeway. But then again so does my V8, 400hp LS2 engine when I drive it outside of the city.
I went from six to eight cylinders, gained fuel economy improvements in the city where I do 99% of my driving and gave up nothing on the freeway.
Thank Sajeev, your right. The TRX wheels came on the 1983 Turbo GT.
If ford want something to drop a hi-po four-banger into, perhaps they should’ve looked into bringing over the Focus RS. Would’ve been perfect competition for the WRX/Evo/MS3/GTI crowd.
Oddly enough, I think of the old addage, “There’s no Free Lunch.’
And no more appropriate place or time than now.
The bad deal is that the old SVO was too little pushing too much. The lack of torque caused one to buzz the crap out of the package to even budge the older pony.
Now? I can’t see how a Lb. has changed with time. Maybe they could wrench mo torque out of the mill but alas, that is a time honoured conundrum of small engines . N/a and pressurized alike.
Maybe a Buick S/C 3800 copycat?
Not gonna do much for the brand though…
Now that sounds a whole lot more interesting than a V8 ‘stang. Taking 500 lbs. off the front end of the thing could really make a difference. Imagine a Mustang as happy going around corners as it is in a straight line. With a modern drivetrain and direct injection they should be able to make the power curve much smoother than on turbo-4s of old.
Yi ha.
“The last time Ford offered them not many people opted for them.”
Times they are a changing. Remember the Mustang II? That dressed up Pinto sold like gangbusters in the late 70s.
If they’re so intent on a sporty 4-banger, they should bring over the Euro Focus. Or make a new probe.
Mustang should be V8 only. Forever.
“Mustang should be V8 only. Forever.”
Six cylinder Mustangs have been a big part of the sales mix forever. Even today the V-6 Mustang slightly outsells the V-8.
The majority of Mustang buyers over the years have wanted a sporty, fun two door which is cheap to buy and cheap to run. Nothing wrong with that.
A four-cylinder Mustang would be an ideal way to destroy the brand virtues of the nameplate. This is the sort of thing that TTAC decries on a daily basis, and we should denounce this idea as an egregious sin against branding.
A Mustang is supposed to be an affordable distinctly American rear-wheel drive coupe with a V8 at its core and with a lesser secretary’s compromise model for the masses. To tinker with that formula is to undermine decades of market building.
The Mustang II was a mistake, one not to be repeated. Ford could (sorta) get away with that during the 1970’s when Detroit was still the Big 3 (Chevy sold a lot of Vegas, but it was a bad product that harmed their long-term brand equity, nonetheless.) Today, Ford has no leeway to foul things up like this.
In any case, the Mustang nameplate has already been beaten to death. It is so strongly associated with V8’s that the market will probably not accept a four-cylinder version as anything more than a rental version of the “real” car, turbo or not. Nobody looks at a Mustang and thinks “fuel saver.”
If Ford wants to sell a turbo 4 sporty car, then it needs to be in a different form. Base it on the Fusion or Focus, not the Mustang.
There are just too many different Mustang versions to keep it straight. Whatever the standard one is, and SVO, Cobra, Shelby, GT, GT500, Bullit, and I am sure a few more since I am not an aficionado of the metal.
I’ve yet to a hear a turbo four that sounds like anything but a cleaning implement from within the car. Most of them are torque-deprived in a bottom of the rev range. None of this is fitting for the Mustang.
I think Ford is actually on the right track with the upcoming engine line. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the existing 4L V6 costs less to make than a small-displacement turbocharged V6, and perhaps even a turbo four. It offers strong torque, reasonable MPG, and a great sound. I don’t believe Mustang buyers (who already sacrifice a fair bit of practicality relative to alternatives in this price range) would accept losing all of that for a few more miles of range.
The relationship between a larger turbo V6 and the V8 will probably mirror that which is already occurring in Australia with the Ford Falcon. The V8 is a bit of a paper tiger; while it has superficially higher power numbers, the V6 is actually faster because of less weight and a superior torque curve. And it makes better MPG figures. As a result, Ford expects far more buyers to choose the V6.
Any word on the SVO’s pricing? Isn’t that what killed the first incarnation?
A turbo-4cyl Mustang for $2k less than the V6 model might work, provided no one gets rattled about the Mustang Image being jarred by the presence of that engine straining itself to pull about 3500lbs of stylish metal around. And I bet the actual horsepower of that engine might be around 260-275 when it finally hits the engine bay.
As for the Camaro, I doubt anyone wants to be reminded of the atrocious lump of metal known as the “Iron Duke”.
I think this is a sweet deal and one designed to one-up GM’s plans to implement the turbo four into the Camaro. So not only will the the lighter engine be more fuel efficient, but the Mustang’s handling will be enhanced.
Not that I’d buy one anyway.
I’ve yet to a hear a turbo four that sounds like anything but a cleaning implement from within the car. Most of them are torque-deprived in a bottom of the rev range. None of this is fitting for the Mustang.
I like the sounds of cleaning implements. I even like them in a Mustang. I just don’t like them associated with the sounds of a Civic.
cant wait!