Is it time for a 4 banger stang?
07-11-2008, 08:54 AM
#22
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 219
RE: Is it time for a 4 banger stang?
Still, I don't believe this is the magical technology many seem to think it is. Sure, if you replace the 4-cyl in my focus with an ecoboost 4-cyl, I will have a faster car with slightly better (3 mpg?) fuel mileage...when I keep a light foot and don't spray the fuel required to make power with the turbo. The same can be said for replacing the 6-cyl in the Mustang for the ecoboost 6-cyl.
Where I don't see a significant gain in anything other than weight distribution is when putting a smaller engine into a larger car. So what if you can make a 4-cyl perform like a 6-cyl? The power is no supercar, and the fuel efficiency gain will be negligible once pulling the weight of the larger car. Also, the loss of the engine weight is pretty insignificant between the 6-cyl and a 4-cyl turbo...even less when twin turbos are involved (i.e. 6-cyl replacing 8-cyl).
Really now...ecoboost 4-cyl (275hp/280lb-ft). Compare that to the 6-cyl in the Nissan Z (306hp/268lb-ft) which gets 18/25mpg in a 3320lb car. You're not getting 33+mpg in a 3300lb car with the ecoboost. It will probably end up really close to the 6-cyl mpg. I fail to see the magic.
Also, we should not discuss aftermarket mods, because that opens up a whole new discussion. Stock for stock...eh. It's interesting that this old technology is finding its way into the market when sales are slumping and gimmics (Sync radios) lure in customers.
http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=27455
http://www.nissanusa.com/z/specifica...=vlptrim.specs
http://www.fordvehicles.com/Cars/2008focus/
If you read the first link, you'll notice the fuel savings come from a combination of the slightly more powerful engine with lighter vehicle components (not just the engine).
"A weight reduction of 150 pounds for the V-6 version thanks to its downsized – yet superior performing – engine, as well as more lightweight materials, suspension and chassis components."
Where I don't see a significant gain in anything other than weight distribution is when putting a smaller engine into a larger car. So what if you can make a 4-cyl perform like a 6-cyl? The power is no supercar, and the fuel efficiency gain will be negligible once pulling the weight of the larger car. Also, the loss of the engine weight is pretty insignificant between the 6-cyl and a 4-cyl turbo...even less when twin turbos are involved (i.e. 6-cyl replacing 8-cyl).
Really now...ecoboost 4-cyl (275hp/280lb-ft). Compare that to the 6-cyl in the Nissan Z (306hp/268lb-ft) which gets 18/25mpg in a 3320lb car. You're not getting 33+mpg in a 3300lb car with the ecoboost. It will probably end up really close to the 6-cyl mpg. I fail to see the magic.
Also, we should not discuss aftermarket mods, because that opens up a whole new discussion. Stock for stock...eh. It's interesting that this old technology is finding its way into the market when sales are slumping and gimmics (Sync radios) lure in customers.
http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=27455
http://www.nissanusa.com/z/specifica...=vlptrim.specs
http://www.fordvehicles.com/Cars/2008focus/
If you read the first link, you'll notice the fuel savings come from a combination of the slightly more powerful engine with lighter vehicle components (not just the engine).
"A weight reduction of 150 pounds for the V-6 version thanks to its downsized – yet superior performing – engine, as well as more lightweight materials, suspension and chassis components."
07-11-2008, 09:06 AM
#23
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 219
RE: Is it time for a 4 banger stang?
Also, before I get heat for bringing up the Nissan Z's engine in the above post, I think it's crap to compare Ford's v6 to their 'new' ecoboost 4-cyl. Foreign competitors laugh at our pathetic 6-cyl engines. To me, they (Ford)are improving their own products trying to catch up with their competition, and it's sad that it took a turbo to do it really. I like Ford, but they are a step or two behind some of the other auto makers.
07-11-2008, 09:17 AM
#24
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 219
RE: Is it time for a 4 banger stang?
Also, I don't think anyone's mentioned the fact that Ford's making a 2.0 literturbo 4-cyl producing 275hp/280lb-ft with that ecoboost. I hope it comes with forged internals because that's a lot of stress on that little engine. What's the cost of forged internals gonna run? From Ford? haha...watch your wallets and opt for the extended warranty!!
07-11-2008, 11:59 AM
#26
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 346
RE: Is it time for a 4 banger stang?
ORIGINAL: Getaway
Also, I don't think anyone's mentioned the fact that Ford's making a 2.0 literturbo 4-cyl producing 275hp/280lb-ft with that ecoboost. I hope it comes with forged internals because that's a lot of stress on that little engine. What's the cost of forged internals gonna run? From Ford? haha...watch your wallets and opt for the extended warranty!!
Also, I don't think anyone's mentioned the fact that Ford's making a 2.0 literturbo 4-cyl producing 275hp/280lb-ft with that ecoboost. I hope it comes with forged internals because that's a lot of stress on that little engine. What's the cost of forged internals gonna run? From Ford? haha...watch your wallets and opt for the extended warranty!!
07-11-2008, 02:47 PM
#27
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DTLA, CA
Posts: 4,897
RE: Is it time for a 4 banger stang?
ORIGINAL: Getaway
Still, I don't believe this is the magical technology many seem to think it is. Sure, if you replace the 4-cyl in my focus with an ecoboost 4-cyl, I will have a faster car with slightly better (3 mpg?) fuel mileage...when I keep a light foot and don't spray the fuel required to make power with the turbo. The same can be said for replacing the 6-cyl in the Mustang for the ecoboost 6-cyl.
Where I don't see a significant gain in anything other than weight distribution is when putting a smaller engine into a larger car. So what if you can make a 4-cyl perform like a 6-cyl? The power is no supercar, and the fuel efficiency gain will be negligible once pulling the weight of the larger car. Also, the loss of the engine weight is pretty insignificant between the 6-cyl and a 4-cyl turbo...even less when twin turbos are involved (i.e. 6-cyl replacing 8-cyl).
Really now...ecoboost 4-cyl (275hp/280lb-ft). Compare that to the 6-cyl in the Nissan Z (306hp/268lb-ft) which gets 18/25mpg in a 3320lb car. You're not getting 33+mpg in a 3300lb car with the ecoboost. It will probably end up really close to the 6-cyl mpg. I fail to see the magic.
Also, we should not discuss aftermarket mods, because that opens up a whole new discussion. Stock for stock...eh. It's interesting that this old technology is finding its way into the market when sales are slumping and gimmics (Sync radios) lure in customers.
http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=27455
http://www.nissanusa.com/z/specifica...=vlptrim.specs
http://www.fordvehicles.com/Cars/2008focus/
If you read the first link, you'll notice the fuel savings come from a combination of the slightly more powerful engine with lighter vehicle components (not just the engine).
"A weight reduction of 150 pounds for the V-6 version thanks to its downsized – yet superior performing – engine, as well as more lightweight materials, suspension and chassis components."
Still, I don't believe this is the magical technology many seem to think it is. Sure, if you replace the 4-cyl in my focus with an ecoboost 4-cyl, I will have a faster car with slightly better (3 mpg?) fuel mileage...when I keep a light foot and don't spray the fuel required to make power with the turbo. The same can be said for replacing the 6-cyl in the Mustang for the ecoboost 6-cyl.
Where I don't see a significant gain in anything other than weight distribution is when putting a smaller engine into a larger car. So what if you can make a 4-cyl perform like a 6-cyl? The power is no supercar, and the fuel efficiency gain will be negligible once pulling the weight of the larger car. Also, the loss of the engine weight is pretty insignificant between the 6-cyl and a 4-cyl turbo...even less when twin turbos are involved (i.e. 6-cyl replacing 8-cyl).
Really now...ecoboost 4-cyl (275hp/280lb-ft). Compare that to the 6-cyl in the Nissan Z (306hp/268lb-ft) which gets 18/25mpg in a 3320lb car. You're not getting 33+mpg in a 3300lb car with the ecoboost. It will probably end up really close to the 6-cyl mpg. I fail to see the magic.
Also, we should not discuss aftermarket mods, because that opens up a whole new discussion. Stock for stock...eh. It's interesting that this old technology is finding its way into the market when sales are slumping and gimmics (Sync radios) lure in customers.
http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=27455
http://www.nissanusa.com/z/specifica...=vlptrim.specs
http://www.fordvehicles.com/Cars/2008focus/
If you read the first link, you'll notice the fuel savings come from a combination of the slightly more powerful engine with lighter vehicle components (not just the engine).
"A weight reduction of 150 pounds for the V-6 version thanks to its downsized – yet superior performing – engine, as well as more lightweight materials, suspension and chassis components."
Good Post.
I have some disagreements with some of your logic though. I think that your underestimating the value of an ecoboast i4 in the Mustang. Currently Ford produces the Turboed 2.3l that appears in the Mazdaspeed 3 and 6 and Mazda CX-7. In its current form this motor returns roughly 24 mpg day in and day out(mixed driving) in the MS3. The MS3 weighs in at 3100lbs. The 2.3l will be the basis of an ecoboast motor. Ecoboast is suppose to improve milage by 20% over a non eco motor. So an ecoboast version in the MS3 should get 26-27mpg. I believe that with this motor in a '10 Mustang you will see atleast 25mpg mixed and up to if not more then 30mpg on the highway(depending on gearing.) I don't at all see 3300lbs being out of the relm of possability......
- The Base V6 mustang currently weighs 3351lbs.
- The 4.0l V6 is very large by 6 standards and is cast iron throughout.
- The 2.3l utilizes an alluminium block and cylinder heads.
- The 2010 Mustang is suppose to be lighter then the current version of the S197 through use of high strenght steal.
Also, I only mention the ability to mod because thats what everyone one this sight does, therefore it should be mentioned that a Turboed 4 allows for the possiblity to make large % gains in power with little capital needed.
Brian
07-11-2008, 05:20 PM
#28
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 114
RE: Is it time for a 4 banger stang?
^You logic is out of tune. You act like the mustang if the only car Ford sell! The RWD 4 cyl stang will not provide good mpg's hualing 3400 pds around. It would have to be FWD in order to get the best MPG's. I bought a mustang for the v8, if you cant understand that, then I cant help you. I rather buy a purposeful 4 cyl car (civic) rather than a goofy 4 cyl Stang. Just my .02
07-11-2008, 07:45 PM
#29
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,197
RE: Is it time for a 4 banger stang?
You all do realize that the ecoboost motor that Ford is looking into putting in the stang is a V6.........not an I4........right? There's no talk of Ford putting any of its 4 cyl offerings from any continent into the Mustang right now. If anything I've read is to believed, this particular ecoboost powerplant could be capable of over 400hp with just some tuning.........probably alot more with just some supporting mods and bolt-ons.
07-11-2008, 10:16 PM
#30
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DTLA, CA
Posts: 4,897
RE: Is it time for a 4 banger stang?
ORIGINAL: LS1less
^You logic is out of tune. You act like the mustang if the only car Ford sell! The RWD 4 cyl stang will not provide good mpg's hualing 3400 pds around. It would have to be FWD in order to get the best MPG's. I bought a mustang for the v8, if you cant understand that, then I cant help you. I rather buy a purposeful 4 cyl car (civic) rather than a goofy 4 cyl Stang. Just my .02
^You logic is out of tune. You act like the mustang if the only car Ford sell! The RWD 4 cyl stang will not provide good mpg's hualing 3400 pds around. It would have to be FWD in order to get the best MPG's. I bought a mustang for the v8, if you cant understand that, then I cant help you. I rather buy a purposeful 4 cyl car (civic) rather than a goofy 4 cyl Stang. Just my .02
I understand that you bought a Mustang for the V8. But not everyone buys a Mustang for the v8, there are more v6's on the road then there are V8's. I own two Mustangs with V8's and they are not going anywhere. I'm not saying that the V8 should be removed from production but there need to be efficient alternatives that offer good performance, unlike the current V6 which sucks fuel almost as bad as the GT and provides some low end grunt but runs out of breath at like 4500rpms.
Also why would an all alluminum 4 banger weight more then the current cast iron V6??? Especially since Ford says it is commited to taking atleast a one hundred pounds of the next generation S197.
Why buy a Civic if you can get the best of both worlds??