2.0 Liter EcoBoost confirmed for 2014 Mustang

[FresnoStateDogs]

Originally Posted by Blue Maro Demon

http://carbuzz.com/news/2012/8/23/2-...stang-7710397/

I have a bad feeling that Ford is going to have a hard time getting people to buy a Mustang that looks like this. We will see once they show the official concept if it looks more like a Mustang or not but so far it doesnt look too good from the exterior. The headlights look like the current Taurus's and the rest just looks too much like the Evos concept. Also GM has a new Turbo 4 cylinder already in the works or done too so looks like we will have 4's, 6's, & 8's. I bet the V6 wont be around much longer.

Is it still a muscle car?

[shaffe]

I agree, they must believe that the turbo 4 will get better mpg

[IBM]

Originally Posted by Kiss My SS

Damn....That orange Mustang photo looks exactly like a Camaro...WTF?

That orange mustang is a concept that was around way before the Camaro concept..

[scrming]

Ok... here's my example.... Let's compare and EcoBoost Flex with AWD to a Trailblazer SS. They seem to be pretty similar... the Flex is actually a bit heavier and in facts seats up to 7 vs the Trailblazers 5...

The Trailblazer makes a little bit more power than the EcoBoost Flex, however I'm confident that with just a little bit of tuning the EcoBoost would make just as much power as the V8 Trailblazer without impacting the MPG of the EcoBoost... In fact with my 93 Octane tune my EcoBoost is right on par with the V8 and I still get the advertised MPG... And looking at the specs the Trailblazer SS in fact requires premium...

So humor me and agree it's a pretty fair comparison...

Now look at the MPG..

Trailblazer is 14/17 and the Flex EcoBoost comes in at 16/23. Doing the math, the Flex gets 14% better MPG in the City and 35% better MPG on the highway...

So that's the idea of the EcoBoost... Getting V8 performance and while maybe not getting super fuel economy, it does deliver better MPG than a comparable V8...

[DaBears]

Originally Posted by scrming

Ok... here's my example.... Let's compare and EcoBoost Flex with AWD to a Trailblazer SS. They seem to be pretty similar... the Flex is actually a bit heavier and in facts seats up to 7 vs the Trailblazers 5...

The Trailblazer makes a little bit more power than the EcoBoost Flex, however I'm confident that with just a little bit of tuning the EcoBoost would make just as much power as the V8 Trailblazer without impacting the MPG of the EcoBoost... In fact with my 93 Octane tune my EcoBoost is right on par with the V8 and I still get the advertised MPG... And looking at the specs the Trailblazer SS in fact requires premium...

So humor me and agree it's a pretty fair comparison...

Now look at the MPG..

Trailblazer is 14/17 and the Flex EcoBoost comes in at 16/23. Doing the math, the Flex gets 14% better MPG in the City and 35% better MPG on the highway...

So that's the idea of the EcoBoost... Getting V8 performance and while maybe not getting super fuel economy, it does deliver better MPG than a comparable V8...

This

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by scrming

Ok... here's my example.... Let's compare and EcoBoost Flex with AWD to a Trailblazer SS. They seem to be pretty similar... the Flex is actually a bit heavier and in facts seats up to 7 vs the Trailblazers 5...

The Trailblazer makes a little bit more power than the EcoBoost Flex, however I'm confident that with just a little bit of tuning the EcoBoost would make just as much power as the V8 Trailblazer without impacting the MPG of the EcoBoost... In fact with my 93 Octane tune my EcoBoost is right on par with the V8 and I still get the advertised MPG... And looking at the specs the Trailblazer SS in fact requires premium...

So humor me and agree it's a pretty fair comparison...

Now look at the MPG..

Trailblazer is 14/17 and the Flex EcoBoost comes in at 16/23. Doing the math, the Flex gets 14% better MPG in the City and 35% better MPG on the highway...

So that's the idea of the EcoBoost... Getting V8 performance and while maybe not getting super fuel economy, it does deliver better MPG than a comparable V8...

How many years between when these two vehicles were designed?

What transmissions do they have?

I think there's more at work here than just ecoboost.


edit:
Yeah... more than 5 years between these two vehicles. Nice stacking the deck there. You have direct injection and a 6 speed transmission versus SFI and a 4-speed...

[scrming]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

How many years between when these two vehicles were designed?

What transmissions do they have?

I think there's more at work here than just ecoboost.


edit:
Yeah... more than 5 years between these two vehicles. Nice stacking the deck there. You have direct injection and a 6 speed transmission versus SFI and a 4-speed...

Ok... so then go find a better comparison.. 7 passengers, V8 in the 4800 pound range... Yukon Denali is close but it's about 1000 pounds heavier... Used to be able to get a 5.7 V8 in the Jeep Grand Cherokee which would be good comparison... the Jeep with the 5.7 had similar power and weight, but only 5 passengers... it 's MPG was rated almost identical to the Trailblazer SS...

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by scrming

Ok... so then go find a better comparison.. 7 passengers, V8 in the 4800 pound range... Yukon Denali is close but it's about 1000 pounds heavier... Used to be able to get a 5.7 V8 in the Jeep Grand Cherokee which would be good comparison... the Jeep with the 5.7 had similar power and weight, but only 5 passengers... it 's MPG was rated almost identical to the Trailblazer SS...

How about a BMW X5 or an Audi or Mercedes V8 AWD Wagon? You are also comparing a Wagon body style to a much taller SUV body style in your suggestions. I think that's unfair as well.

[shaffe]

X5 with the 400hp power plant is rated at 20mpg highway, the 300hp is rated 23mpg

[scrming]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

How about a BMW X5 or an Audi or Mercedes V8 AWD Wagon? You are also comparing a Wagon body style to a much taller SUV body style in your suggestions. I think that's unfair as well.

Specs for the 2013 BMW X5:



* Turbocharged
* Engine: 4.4L V 8 DOHC with variable valve timing and four valves per cylinder
* Premium unleaded fuel
* Fuel economy: EPA (08):, 14 MPG city, 20 MPG highway, 16 MPG combined and 360 mi. range
* Gasoline direct fuel injection
* 22.5gallon fuel tank
* Power (SAE): 400 hp @ 5,500 rpm; 450 ft lb of torque @ 1,750 rpm

So.... a turbo charged V8, WITH direct injection... modern German engineering... but only seating for 5... HOWEVER sure looks a lot more aerodynamic than the Flex... So is that a good enough comparison?

The BMW requires PREMIUM. With a Premium tune, my Flex's performance is about identical! Now look at the MPG. 14/20 with a combined 16 MPG. Again the Flex is rated about 15% better! Don't know what the combined MPG for the Flex is BUT, i can tell you OUR Flex's combined is 20 MPG, which would be 25% better!


Was looking at the Audi Q7 but looks like they dumped their gas V8 in favor of a turbo diesel V6...

Ok.. that's all the time i'm going to spending on this...

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by scrming

Specs for the 2013 BMW X5:



* Turbocharged
* Engine: 4.4L V 8 DOHC with variable valve timing and four valves per cylinder
* Premium unleaded fuel
* Fuel economy: EPA (08):, 14 MPG city, 20 MPG highway, 16 MPG combined and 360 mi. range
* Gasoline direct fuel injection
* 22.5gallon fuel tank
* Power (SAE): 400 hp @ 5,500 rpm; 450 ft lb of torque @ 1,750 rpm

So.... a turbo charged V8, WITH direct injection... modern German engineering... but only seating for 5... HOWEVER sure looks a lot more aerodynamic than the Flex... So is that a good enough comparison?

The BMW requires PREMIUM. With a Premium tune, my Flex's performance is about identical! Now look at the MPG. 14/20 with a combined 16 MPG. Again the Flex is rated about 15% better! Don't know what the combined MPG for the Flex is BUT, i can tell you OUR Flex's combined is 20 MPG, which would be 25% better!


Was looking at the Audi Q7 but looks like they dumped their gas V8 in favor of a turbo diesel V6...

Ok.. that's all the time i'm going to spending on this...

I don't think any more time on this is needed. Maybe not under boost, but at lower/crusing rpms the boosted 6 is going to get better mileage than the V8, or boosted V8...whether its similar weight, gearing, or what not.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

I don't think any more time on this is needed. Maybe not under boost, but at lower/crusing rpms the boosted 6 is going to get better mileage than the V8, or boosted V8...whether its similar weight, gearing, or what not.

Exactly. My Ecoboost F-150 4x4 SuperCab is rated at 15/21 MPG (I actually get 17/23 MPG). Don't think the 6.2L is that good. The only place where they are comparable is when towing. At that point they get roughly the same MPG.

[2001ragtop]

ITS STRANGE THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE MUSTANG SVO.

1984-1986 SVO. Came with turbocharged-intercooled 2.3 litre inline four.

It also came standard with Borg-Warner 5-speed manual transmission which was updated with revised gearing to match the new 3:73 rear (and 3:45) end ratio. A factory installed Hurst shifter was made standard in order to improve feel and quickness.

I drove one of these before and it was very fun.

This mustang was produced ALONG SIDE the 5.0 mustangs. There shouldn't be any reason at all to freak out.

Although Ford predicted that 10,000 SVOs per year would sell, they vastly overestimated demand: Just 9,844 SVO Mustangs were built during the car's three-year lifespan.

[8cd03gro]

I would be willing to bet the ecoboost stang will be an svo model, perhaps with a track option. A ~3300-3400 lb mustang with irs and a decent turbo 4 would be one hell of a car and would offer a more direct competitor to cars like the genesis. Offer a suspension and brake package and it could be a mean weekend warrior on the cheap.