With inflation I believe that’s about the gap between a GT and GT350 today.

I take issue with the ‘need’. What defines what something needs? Want lots of low end torque while returning 40mpg+? You get a hybrid.

There’s little about the current Mustang that’s simple or inexpensive. Relative to other sports cars with similar performance it’s affordable, but the car starts out over $25,000 and is a 3500+ pound hunk stuffed full of technology.

That’s probably how it’ll go. If the V6 really does go the way of the dodo for 2018 as rumored there’s evidence of it. Hybrid motor will slip in above the model it intends to replace and after a few years it’ll push the base model out and replace it.

I find it odd that the drivetrain is secondary to you but a V8 has to be offered otherwise you’ll walk away. That sounds very not secondary.

Cheap V8 power is pretty inconsistent with modern trends towards “best of both worlds” small displacement forced induction sports cars.

Environmental responsibility these days is unfortunately more of a perception issue rather than being founded in the realities of sustainability. The general public will likely always view a hybrid with good gas mileage as being significantly more environmentally conscious than a gas guzzling V8. If you’re trying to…

How much more expensive was it? I honestly have no idea, though I was aware it was the most expensive variant. Would it be comparable to a GT350 over a GT today? The GT350 is popular to the point of dealer markups, but would it be as popular if it was a twin-turbo V6 with the same performance?

Yes, absolutely, which is why I opened with the remark about “not a V8".

Yes not only do you get more ROI from the turbo but the starting price is lower. You can add more power to the GT, but the EB + ProCal is cheaper than a GT yet outperforms it in some aspects.

Yes. I made the remark in another thread about timing. 2020 may be too soon for the bulk of Mustang customers to be over the attitude of “it needs a V8". I do think younger enthusiasts are more open to performance from smaller engines and more technology.

Porsche has overcome it somehow. So has BMW as they’ve switched the M3 from NA V8 to turbo 6.

That’s a pretty backwards way to think, isn’t it? The Ecoboost Mustang and V6 Camaro are highly capable sports cars in their own right, especially compared to previous top spec versions of both cars.

Mileage isn’t everything, environmental responsibility is a big part of the picture. Not trying to be “that guy” but your 20 mpg around town is quite a bit higher than I typical hear about for the GT. Regardless with a hybrid we could theoretically be talking 40mpg+ around town. That would be an enormous jump and…

I expect the V6 is gone after the opening day of this year’s NAIAS.

The SVO is a cautionary tale though, right? That was the top performer at the time but it didn’t last long because people had to have their V8

I think it extends beyond the Mustang and Ford has the power to shape the future of sports cars. They have the opportunity to make a statement that hybrid performance is real and it’s the way to go, but if the V8 has to stay king then they risk creating a poor perception of hybrid performance for the masses.

Perhaps. I’d love to see some numbers on what age bracket the bulk of mustang buyers fall into and what variant they’re buying. Then compare that data to the opinions of people who will be in that majority group when the hybrid Mustang debuts. I suspect that it’ll be more than 3 years before the group who buy…

It’s just difficult to talk numbers because there’s so much confusion around crank/wheel numbers, especially once we discuss modifications like a tune. My point being that tuned Ecoboosts dyno at close to 400 ft-lb torque while stock GTs dyno around 360/370 ft-lb despite being advertised at 400.

I’d rather see it as something other than a bridge. Instead of marketing it as a sports car that’s fuel efficient I’d like to see it marketed as a hybrid that’s exciting.