Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM
I don't follow how putting the engine in the Mustang makes it more powerful than it is now.
And if you're talking about expected improvements, why don't you toss some on the V6 as well before you compare them? You guys are basically just assuming a 10-20% improvement in engine performance, and then saying "Yeah, that's better than the unimproved V6, so it's a better engine".
Also, comparing peak power N/A to peak power FI ... sigh.
|
Sorry man, it wasn't my call to not improve the sixxer. That duty fell solely on some Ford exec and some bean counters out there somewhere. Honestly, if I remember correctly they were going to drop the six completely but couldn't keep the price point as low as they wanted. So they threw it back in just to keep a budget car on the market for fleet sales most likely.
So yes, an unimproved 3.7 will be outperformed by the new 2.3. Secondly, yes I know there will be power improvements to the 2.3 as it moves from the MKC to the Mustang. For a few reasons:
-MKC has the motor transversely mounted for the FWD/AWD set up on the Lincoln
-Longitudinally mounting the engine for RWD will allow for a better routing of things such as intakes and exhausts
-There is always room in the EB line up to improve performance, going from a people mover to a performance car means power increases just make sense.
Lastly, you seem to believe that we're only compairing peak numbers when it come to hypothesizing which will performs better. It's easy enough to look at pretty much any turbo powerplant an see that they tend to have broad HP and TQ curves. They tend to give torque very early compaired to NA engines and hold a flatter broader power band than them as well. It's clear you don't like and/or trust the EB engines...that's fine, that's your perogative. I just don't see the reasoning behind your instant denial of their capabilities. The science behind turbo engines isn't new so these results shouldn't be any real surprise.