Jande063

We run a 2002 S2000 in both STR and TTC. It has 126,000 miles, 30,000 of which are track miles. It has lost 2 rwhp through all that (it dynos a whopping 192 hp and 132 ft-lbs).

That said, I would honestly say that neither the 2.3 or the 5.0 are a bad choice. I just am not really a fan of some of the choices that Ford made with the way they implemented the 2.3 in the Mustang.

krssrls

I just upgraded my injectors been running an E85 tune for well over a year with no problems. the 5.0 is a flex fuel motor no problems there. now since i'm traveling so much for work i have had to tune back to 93 since E85 isn't always available. but if i want to pump it in all i have to do is change the tune out right quick. i don't see why the fuel system cant handle it. car has performed great. fuel mileage on the other had sucks on E85.

Intrepid175

Thanks for the response. That's interesting, I had no idea the 5.0 was flex fuel rated. I'm no expert on the subject so take this with a grain of salt but my understanding is that all the elements of the fuel system, especially any gaskets, o-rings, etc., have to be compatible with the alcohol in the fuel. Most non-flex fuel cars are only rated to handle E10, which has been on the market for years now. When they started talking about upping the alcohol percentages to 15 a while back is caused a lot of concern. Virtually all the major manufactures warned right up front that they would not warranty any fuel system problems caused by running E15 in vehicles rated for a maximum of E10. I'm currently driving a 2013 Toyota Rav4 and it specifically forbids anything over E10. The gas cap has E15 with a slashed out circle around it. There were a number of problems with older vehicles when E10 was phased in and I suspect the same will be true if they try to implement E15. Of course, anyone driving a flex fuel certified car won't have to worry about it.

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind saying, what kind of economy numbers are you seeing with E85? My understanding is that E85 is significantly cheaper than gasoline. Do you think it's worth the lower fuel economy?

Drive Safe,
Steve R.

CaptainX

Not sure if it's been said already, but the lag on accelerating with the auto is from the traction control. Turn it off, and the lag is gone.

JimC

The lag has nothing to do with TCS. It is part of the drive by wire stock programming.

CaptainX

Makes sense. I'm just reporting my experience. When I have traction control on, there seems to be a delay that exists while the car figures out if the tires are going to spin. The result of which is a slight surge, then a slight drop in RPM, then it picks up. I don't experience this with traction off.

krssrls

I got an extra 20 RWHP on E85 on the dyno and at best i was getting 21MPG freeway on E85.

Intrepid175

Cool, thanks! Proves there's no free lunch.

pascal

Bingo! Jim knows...

Also, most of you youngins are talking out of your *****.

For bracket racing, quarter mile: Auto trans
For road course: Manual trans
If you got this wrong^^^^^...find another hobby or stay home with Mommy

Advantages of Auto on the streets: Heavy traffic and repeat stop and go etc...
Advantages of a manual set up on the street: Fun factor of course! Especially in the mountains.

As for V8 or not, it's purely suggestive... I'm an old school guy so V8 for me, even if your 4 banger is faster.
I actually wish that the Stang without any drivetrain was 400lbs lighter. It would be an instant mega winner no matter the engine option...

DeathRattle

I know a few who have done them. If I were planning to keep my GT, then cams would be on the menu.