Norm Peterson

I wouldn't mind seeing some version of the Ecoboost motor . . . but it would absolutely have to be available with a manual transmission. I would expect slightly more boost, HP, and torque in a Mustang application.

My wife's turbo'ed Subie with six-speed manual is also a very quick car for its weight and "only" 2.5 liters engine displacement. Just imagining what another 100+ HP and 100+ ft-lbs in about the same weight car would drive like . . .


Norm

JIM5.0

I do too. Direct injection has the benefit of reducing detonation without having to retard the spark. That lends itself better to forced induction, whether you chose to go turbos or mechanically coupled (supercharger).

I am not sure why direct injection has this effect, the one thing that pops into my head is the fresh fuel entering the cylinder is still cold and draws heat out of the still hot cylinder from the previous combustion. I think the spray pattern has an effect also. But I don't know how.

smokinAMD

I'm not falling for this whole ecoboost thing JUST yet. It all looks great on paper, but that's just that, on paper.

I have pretty good reasoning behind this. Ford teamed up with Mazda to help develop these eco boost engines. Ford hasn't really ever played around with turbos or direct injection before, thats where Mazda came in to help. Mazda has been doing both since 2006 when they introduced the Mazdaspeed 6, and they continue to do so on their CX-7 and Mazdaspeed 3. Little background info for you, the turbo direct injection 2.3 liter 4 banger in the speed? Yeah, 263hp and 280 ft/lbs of torque. Not too shabby there. I should know, I traded in my 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 for for my 2010 Mustang GT.

Here's the thing though. They are nearly MAXED out, they are right on the ragged edge of chaos. The connecting rods are pure crap, just tying to get an extra 60 or 70 hp out of the car, you WILL be punching a hole in the side of the block. Hell, some people even had the great luck of having that happen to them when their cars were 100% stock. The turbos are also JUNK. The seals fail and you blow smoke everywhere, typically when you have less than 30k miles on the car (The Mazdaspeed 3, Mazdaspeed 6, and CX-7 were all plagued by this). The direct injection fuel system is crap, 2 different recalls to have fuel delivery issues corrected, and it still isn't worked out right. Just adding an intake on the car damn near requires replacing the high pressure pump, a $700 purchase. Tuning a DI motor is a PITA.

So unless Ford learned a lot from Mazda, and used better parts, no thanks, not for me.

JIM5.0

Oh, absolutely! What Ecoboost does to the Taurus SHO, it will definitely do wonders for the 3.7L in the base trim Mustang!

And in the GT, I expect no less than seeing 500 BHP and also 500 ft-lbf torque at the crank when Ecoboosting a 5.0 Coyote!

Crank up the boost and you can put the very same Ecoboosted Coyote in the GT500 (or Cobra, whatever name Ford will call the top trim) and 650 BHP at the crank is possible.


The rumor that bothers me right now are internet stories of the 2014 GT losing the Coyote for an Ecoboosted V6 and the base trim getting a V6 that is not even Ecoboosted at all!
A GT without a V8 is pure blasphemy, and I hope Ford will not allow that.

smokinAMD

They might have to with all those green **** pussies in Washington.....

daredevil95

Well said....anyone ever mod V6/4cl turbos? I was modifying Grand Nationals when they were new....That was the only turbo motor that could handle the HP but, a totally different driving experience then a V8 pony car. When Pontiac installed the 3.8 turbo in the 89 GTA it was a fast car but, changed the dynamics of the car for the worst.....modified 5.7 rarely broke and had a more pony/muscle car feel over the V6 Turbo. Nothing pulls/sounds/modifies/drives like a V8. I also spent time over the years with Evo's, WRX-STI's, Turbo Supra's,Turbo RX7's(94!!!!Bad ****) and other turbo cars....they just don't have the durability of a V8. When owning turbo cars we will become very familiar with head gaskets, heads and valves and cracking induction manifolds in half. We will be crossing our fingers for good luck every time we drive aggressively. Anyone remember the SVO "84-86".....turbo time bombs!!!!

JIM5.0

For those fanatical green hippy politicians, it is up to us to remove them. I hate them as much as you do, not just because they hurt our passion for performance cars, but also for their lies about how cars are the cause of pollution when approximately 80% or more is made by other sources. And this study was done by the EPA themselves!
I voted the last year, and I made sure non of the guys I voted are such green fanatics. The next time, I am going t vote again in the same manner. I encourage all other performance car fans and enthusiasts to do the same.

As for direct injection, it has been around for going on 80 years if not more. Direct injection has been around in mass production since WW2, probably even years prior. Off the top of my head, the mass application of direct injection that I can think of is the Germans in WW2 using direct injection in their ME B.F.109 fighter planes that mounted the Daimler 601 and 605 engines (not the Rolls 801, the British were pissed off at them and cut them off early in the war, and the 801 is not even direct injected). The Germans even sold the license to Japan to make the Daimler 601, which they used in their own aircraft in the Pacific theater of the war.
If Mazda is so much fail in their execution of direct injection, they obviously said "screw it" to nearly 80 years of direct injection application.

Since the Coyote heads are redesigned into a totally different beast from the 3V 4.6L heads, I sure would hope that the Ford engineers did not use the same utterly fail design flaws where Mazda screwed up. The same for the execution of the rest of the direct injection system, from the fuel rails to the injectors themselves.

Ford has had success with EcoBoost in the Taurus SHO, I have not heard of the frequency of failures of its direct injection system as in the Mazdas.
With hoe the Coyote heads were redesigned to mount direct injectors, I sure hope that Ford will continue with the success they learned form the 3.5L V6 SHO Ecoboost instead of Mazda's fail crap fuel delivery system.

LostBoyz

Maybe you naysayers should go check out the stress test that ford put on one random ecoboost 3.5l, simulated 150,000 miles, put into a truck for lumber hauling, taken out and put in a raptor and ran the baja 1000, and a few others. They took the motor apart at the detroit auto show and it was in great shape considering it had over 300,000 miles on it.

It won't be going into the mustang because it physically won't fit.

ShaneM

i heard a ford engineer in dearborne when they unveiled the new explorer say that the v6 ecoboost was taking 20 pounds happily in testing. he shyed away from the how much boost can it take question and just said in testing 20 was not an issue. so think about that. if you cram a ecoboost v6 into a stang at 20 pounds boost with 500hp and nearly that much torque, i am buying. the ecoboost will find its way into the stang. ford wants that motor everywhere. my money still says a new svo style stang after the shelby goes away. i think we will see ecoboost 5.0 too, i can see that hitting the area of Super Snake power but it will be so damn expensive none of us that really want one will ever own it.

JIM5.0

I believe the 3.7L V6 heads were designed just like the Coyote 5.0L heads, with direct injection in mind, and possibly Ecoboost too.
The Mustang will never see the 3.5L Ecoboost that is in the SHO, but the 3.7L might very well become another Ecobootsed engine itself. And if it is successful and outperforms the SHO 3.5L Ecoboost, the 3.7 Ecoboost could find a new home in the SHO.