Mean While At the Ford Factory!!!

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Here's where you may (and will) be mistaken. The current 3.7L Mustang produces 305/280, not bad. However, taken into account of the more than likely weight loss of the S550, performance from a I4-T that in its MKC form makes 275/300 (we should see 310+/310+ in Mustang guise) should easily outpace the 3.7L by simply out torquing the sixxer. And as a side benefit, if you can stay out of the throttle, it should also yield better overall fuel mileage.

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.

[crysalis_01]

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.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

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.

I don't deny their capabilities, I just don't assume a turbo is better than NA just because the turbo has 5 more peak HP. I know better.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

I don't deny their capabilities, I just don't assume a turbo is better than NA just because the turbo has 5 more peak HP. I know better.

See now that I understand. However I don't believe at any single point did in ever say that the smaller turbo engine would be better because of just the difference in peak numbers. I have said again and again that its the broad/flat in combination with higher outout that makes one engine better than the other.

[trademaster]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

This from the guy who supports a higher costing, higher maintenance, same performance replacement for a V6. I'll believe you're as smart as you think you are when you acknowledge the obvious.

I asked for a logical rebuttal and this is what I got . Who said it has the same performance? Every indication from Ford has been that the I4 will offer more power and more torque.

"With a projected 305-plus horsepower and 300-plus lb.-ft. of torque, this EcoBoost engine fits the bill for a true Mustang powerplant."

That's from a Ford press release, not an assumption.

Ford is also saying the v6 will make 300-plus hp and 270-plus lb.-ft of torque.

That's 30 more ft lbs of torque than the v6 and 5 more hp. Given the torque curve of every single twin-scroll turbo 4 on the market it will almost assuredly make torque much earlier than the v6 as well. There is no logical reason to believe otherwise, a truth you seem unable to refute based on your responses.

What are you going to say when this car comes out and the I4 is making 300ft lbs at <3,000rpm and the V6 makes 270 at 4k+?

EDIT:

from Edmunds,

"The official line today is that the EcoBoost 2.3 will develop more than 305 hp at 5,500 rpm and in excess of 300 lb-ft of torque between 2,500 and 4,500 rpm on 87 octane, though our sources indicate the peak output will land in the neighborhood of 330 hp. It's an undersquare layout (3.5-inch bore and 3.7-inch stroke) with 9.5:1 compression ratio and a twin-scroll Honeywell turbo that bolts directly to the head, sans traditional exhaust manifold (the exhaust runners are integrated and paired directly in the head casting itself)."

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by trademaster

I asked for a logical rebuttal and this is what I got . Who said it has the same performance? Every indication from Ford has been that the I4 will offer more power and more torque.

"With a projected 305-plus horsepower and 300-plus lb.-ft. of torque, this EcoBoost engine fits the bill for a true Mustang powerplant."

That's from a Ford press release, not an assumption.

Ford is also saying the v6 will make 300-plus hp and 270-plus lb.-ft of torque.

That's 30 more ft lbs of torque than the v6 and 5 more hp. Given the torque curve of every single twin-scroll turbo 4 on the market it will almost assuredly make torque much earlier than the v6 as well. There is no logical reason to believe otherwise, a truth you seem unable to refute based on your responses.

What are you going to say when this car comes out and the I4 is making 300ft lbs at <3,000rpm and the V6 makes 270 at 4k+?

EDIT:

from Edmunds,

"The official line today is that the EcoBoost 2.3 will develop more than 305 hp at 5,500 rpm and in excess of 300 lb-ft of torque between 2,500 and 4,500 rpm on 87 octane, though our sources indicate the peak output will land in the neighborhood of 330 hp. It's an undersquare layout (3.5-inch bore and 3.7-inch stroke) with 9.5:1 compression ratio and a twin-scroll Honeywell turbo that bolts directly to the head, sans traditional exhaust manifold (the exhaust runners are integrated and paired directly in the head casting itself)."

Lol, right.

[trademaster]

You are going to feel like a total ass when this car comes out. Do a few quick Google searches on other twin-scroll turbocharged 4 cylinders. Just as one example, the 2015 Subaru WRX makes 258 ft lbs of torque @ 2,000rpm out of a 2.0l 4 cylinder, 13% less displacement than the 2.3l Ecoboost. I shouldn't have to explain to you the capabilities of these engines. The information is readily available to you. Again, please refute with logic instead of just, "wwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!"

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by Blue Maro Demon

This car doesn't look very good in its own right but the fact it looks like a Ford FUSION and other more tame cars doesn't help it any either.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attach...1&d=1386280105

Time to roll out some facts from Ford folk themselves...

The Evos styling exercise was inspired by Classic Mustangs and the Shelby/13 Mustang front end. The fact that the volume seller Fusion was its debut came down to the focus on the volume seller first. Now the Mustang has it's variation of the Mustang inspired incorrectly labelled Fusion front end. While this in no way affects the car itself, it's helpful in spotting those who like to spout cliches all day long as if they were the first to think of it. Gotta love Ford for helping us identify the ***** bags. ;-)

[Fenderaddict2]

And just for the record, you are right, it doesn't look like a muscle car at all. Let the Camaro look like a Plymouth GTX, the Mustang is more sophisticated than that returning to it's American take on Euro design just as it did from '65 to '70. Each has its own appeal.

[TheReaper]

Originally Posted by Fenderaddict2

And just for the record, you are right, it doesn't look like a muscle car at all. Let the Camaro look like a Plymouth GTX, the Mustang is more sophisticated than that returning to it's American take on Euro design just as it did from '65 to '70. Each has its own appeal.

[Wezbad1]

Awesome, I have not seen a dyno post under 300hp in years, brings me back to the days when I posted in the Opel forums. Thx for the memories

Originally Posted by trademaster

LOL. I am using logic. What are you using, a crystal ball? The Ford engineers have said the turbo 4 has a broader torque curve and there is no reason to believe otherwise. You don't even seem to know the difference between twin-scroll and twin-turbo.

Here's a stock Focus ST dyno, ecoboost 2.0l



There is no logical reason a 2.3l ecoboost won't have a similar curve, but with more output. Make a logical rebuttal and we'll continue.

When I say it will respond better to mods I mean exactly that. Look at any 250-300hp turbo 4 on the market and compare what it picks up with basic bolt ons to any of the N/A v6 engines around. The difference is enormous.



Almost non-existent does not equal non-existent. Turbo lag is incredibly small with modern twin-scroll, ball-bearing turbos. There is plenty of exhaust to spool at tip-in, it just takes a split second to pressurize and bam. . . boost. Drive a car with a proper twin-scroll turbo and you will see what I mean. It will always exist, but it has become negligible in performance driving. The very minor lag is made up for and then some by a vastly superior torque curve to an N/A V6.

We'll see when the car comes out, but I'd bet the ecoboost model is considerably quicker than the V6

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Horsepower vs. Torque seems to confuse some. Here's a rudimentary Vehicle Dynamics short-course:

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

More torque, delivered more evenly throughout the rpm range, is GOOD. Peaky torque, delivered on a broad-sweep bell curve is less desirable for most driving situation, excepting perhaps a suitably optimized drag car.

Torque is what pulls/pushes you down the road in day-to-day driving. If you have more torque on a relatively flat plain, with the chance of improved mpgs., winner-winner-chicken dinner! Until you factor in co$t. Perhaps.

Horsepower, alone, is for bar bets and 'net chatter. Seldom fully usable on the street, daily, without paying a huge price at the pump. Moving forward, pump-paying (CAFE) is a strong(er) consideration. The Feds are telling us that, and we'll be obliged to adapt. That's part of the reason why the GT500's engine will not carry over to the Gen-6 EuroStang.

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by TheReaper

Trolls are hungry creatures, need to keep them happy don't we, otherwise they start spouting total rather than partial nonsense?