2015 2.3 Ecoboost Mustang?
06-19-2013, 07:46 PM
#71
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 272
Yep! The most fun car I ever owned before I got my Mustang was a Peugeot 205GTi 1.6.
It had this awesome short close ratio gearbox so it would scream along in 5th at the speed limit on the motorway but was so fun around country lanes, shifting to stay in the power band. It was incredibly light too, but that's because the sheet metal was so thin!
Of course, keeping it between 4000-6000 rpm wasn't exactly good for fuel economy...
It had this awesome short close ratio gearbox so it would scream along in 5th at the speed limit on the motorway but was so fun around country lanes, shifting to stay in the power band. It was incredibly light too, but that's because the sheet metal was so thin!
Of course, keeping it between 4000-6000 rpm wasn't exactly good for fuel economy...
06-19-2013, 08:28 PM
#72
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: CO
Posts: 310
As the debate rages on
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...my-claims.html
What is funny is all the comments at the bottom of the article for all the 'facts' CR did not report. CR should have used big words like stoichiometry! If you can point me to the equations proving you make more power form the same AF ratio with a turbo, I would love to understand them better, maybe you can convert me. Most of the descriptions out there are platitudes explaining the basic facts of forced induction, nothing really proves to me it is a scientific fact it is better than NA.
Would I turbo my V8, heck yes, would I purchase a turbo 4, not until the govt forces me to.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...my-claims.html
What is funny is all the comments at the bottom of the article for all the 'facts' CR did not report. CR should have used big words like stoichiometry! If you can point me to the equations proving you make more power form the same AF ratio with a turbo, I would love to understand them better, maybe you can convert me. Most of the descriptions out there are platitudes explaining the basic facts of forced induction, nothing really proves to me it is a scientific fact it is better than NA.
Would I turbo my V8, heck yes, would I purchase a turbo 4, not until the govt forces me to.
06-19-2013, 08:40 PM
#73
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 272
I also believe the 2014 year had no Boss so Ford could clear the decks for the big roll-out of the 2015. 2014 was mostly a copy of 13 with some more paint options.
Would you buy this if for a little more, you could get a (like new) TT or Z4?
Ford demographics for a 2015 Mustang: Urban eclectic, child seats x2, bike rack, probably won't Mod and really wants an up-scale German car. I'll go see one but I'm not budgeting for one yet.
A 5.0 under that hood? will spark plug changes be possible? We have become dinosaurs and the New Wave Metro-Trans-Gender-Urban-Eco car is here. I feel like I'm looking at the 1978 Mustang II 302 with 123 hp.
Later
Would you buy this if for a little more, you could get a (like new) TT or Z4?
Ford demographics for a 2015 Mustang: Urban eclectic, child seats x2, bike rack, probably won't Mod and really wants an up-scale German car. I'll go see one but I'm not budgeting for one yet.
A 5.0 under that hood? will spark plug changes be possible? We have become dinosaurs and the New Wave Metro-Trans-Gender-Urban-Eco car is here. I feel like I'm looking at the 1978 Mustang II 302 with 123 hp.
Later
266ft/lb in the 2.0. The Mustang is probably getting a 2.3 and it'll have about 300.
If they struck a deal with Tesla to put in their Model S drive train, I'd still go for it. Would I be taking the motor apart and winding the coils tighter for more power? Would I reprogram it's TCS or power vectoring system? Sure, why not. I used to do stuff like that with my old electric remote control car... I don't care what they put in the car as long as it has a lot of torque, is a 2 door coupe and drives well...
06-19-2013, 10:43 PM
#74
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kansas
Posts: 40
Honestly I'm really looking forward to the Ecoboost 4. I have always loved V8's and classic muscle (my first vehicle was a '65 Ford pickup with a built 302), but I was wooed by my '12 V6 while searching for a BMW-ish twisty road machine. If Ford does more of the 3.7L S197's magic on the 2.3L S550, then it will be a fantastic driver's car for those who are willing to see it.
Cars like the Shelbys, Mach 1s, etc will always be the legends of the breed, but any mustang with any engine is only a secretary car if you drive it like a secretary.
Cars like the Shelbys, Mach 1s, etc will always be the legends of the breed, but any mustang with any engine is only a secretary car if you drive it like a secretary.
06-20-2013, 05:04 PM
#75
S197 Section Modder-ator
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 13,373
Yep! The most fun car I ever owned before I got my Mustang was a Peugeot 205GTi 1.6.
It had this awesome short close ratio gearbox so it would scream along in 5th at the speed limit on the motorway but was so fun around country lanes, shifting to stay in the power band. It was incredibly light too, but that's because the sheet metal was so thin!
Of course, keeping it between 4000-6000 rpm wasn't exactly good for fuel economy...
It had this awesome short close ratio gearbox so it would scream along in 5th at the speed limit on the motorway but was so fun around country lanes, shifting to stay in the power band. It was incredibly light too, but that's because the sheet metal was so thin!
Of course, keeping it between 4000-6000 rpm wasn't exactly good for fuel economy...
06-24-2013, 08:26 PM
#77
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,335
I've always preferred BIG engines and will always like the sound of a V8 over lesser cylinder cars but the time is coming where tiny engines with turbos will be more economically feasible for most people. Tuners are already turning the 2.0L 4cyl Toyobaru BRZFT86s into a kick *** cars that I personally wouldn't mind driving, doubling the HP with turbos and making 11 second cars out of them. This is what they should've done from the factory, a 400 hp car that weighs less than 3000 lbs. The car in this video will kill most Mustangs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdFiFOWGms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdFiFOWGms
The Crawford tuned BRZ will kill most anything on the road from a dig. It's slaughtered Vette's. Of course it has a full engine overhaul and a big turbo.
06-28-2013, 11:59 AM
#78
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OK
Posts: 667
Hey just be glad its a turbo 4 banger with around 300hp, rather than a poverty N/A 4 cylinder from their Focus with maybe 170hp. THAT would be disastrous for mustangs and its owners who have the GT's
But then again, i'm all about turbo 4 cylinders for balance of fuel economy, lighter weight, and power when you want it... but in a mustang does feel off. Cannot fathom the thought of a 4 cyl. mustang trying to race me with a fart-can exhaust.
edit: this would hurt the 5.0 but imagine how cool it'd be to have a redesigned (for RWD) taurus SHO motor, the twin turbo v6 with 360hp....
or make the v6 only a 3.2L with twin turbos pushing 380-400hp yet getting up to 30mpg highway
and to not hurt the 5.0, just bump it up to 5.4L and catch up with hp numbers of camaro and challenger (440-470hp)
But then again, i'm all about turbo 4 cylinders for balance of fuel economy, lighter weight, and power when you want it... but in a mustang does feel off. Cannot fathom the thought of a 4 cyl. mustang trying to race me with a fart-can exhaust.
edit: this would hurt the 5.0 but imagine how cool it'd be to have a redesigned (for RWD) taurus SHO motor, the twin turbo v6 with 360hp....
or make the v6 only a 3.2L with twin turbos pushing 380-400hp yet getting up to 30mpg highway
and to not hurt the 5.0, just bump it up to 5.4L and catch up with hp numbers of camaro and challenger (440-470hp)
Last edited by Jas5; 06-28-2013 at 12:05 PM.
06-28-2013, 12:57 PM
#79
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 389
Reliability, I'll wait for the 2017 Mack 1. If the 2015/16's are toasted by then, my 2013 will get a N/A "Black Lung" crate engine. I'll let you Lemmings be the Guinea-pigs.
Last edited by VistaBlueFrank68; 06-28-2013 at 12:59 PM.
06-28-2013, 03:04 PM
#80
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Washington
Posts: 29
Poor reliability? Turbo four killing the brand? With all this talk of fire and brimstone, you'd think Ford was doing something outrageous by stuffing a turbo four under the hood.
Seems Toadster is the only one who remembers the past.
Ford did this already. It didn't suck. It didn't blow apart. in 1985, the coolest Mustang you could buy didn't come with a V8, it was the 2.3Turbo SVO. At 205hp, it matched the 5.0 at the time (and got dialed back a little the next year so it didn't have more than the '86 5.0). It was a great engine and could be easily modified for a lot more power reliably. Oh, and it got better mileage than the 5.0 of the time.
And Ford didn't build it to compete with the Japanese... it was designed to bring back buyers that turned to European cars.
A little reading assignment for anyone who isn't familiar with the SVO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SVO
Seems Toadster is the only one who remembers the past.
Ford did this already. It didn't suck. It didn't blow apart. in 1985, the coolest Mustang you could buy didn't come with a V8, it was the 2.3Turbo SVO. At 205hp, it matched the 5.0 at the time (and got dialed back a little the next year so it didn't have more than the '86 5.0). It was a great engine and could be easily modified for a lot more power reliably. Oh, and it got better mileage than the 5.0 of the time.
And Ford didn't build it to compete with the Japanese... it was designed to bring back buyers that turned to European cars.
A little reading assignment for anyone who isn't familiar with the SVO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SVO