Mean While At the Ford Factory!!!

[Fenderaddict2]

Are we not overlooking the biggest advantage of the new 4 over the 6? Lighter weight and shorter length allowing it to be set further back. Could make for a great handling car, no?

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by Fenderaddict2

Are we not overlooking the biggest advantage of the new 4 over the 6? Lighter weight and shorter length allowing it to be set further back. Could make for a great handling car, no?

I would imagine so. Though some will try to say that the intercooler and its piping counter that. Which they couldn't unless lined with lead.

[Dizzy82]

I don't get it. That new Mustang doesn't look like a muscle car to me at all.

This one below is the last Mustang that did look like a serious muscle car...

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1000x649.

I'd drive that.

[S3XPanther]

Originally Posted by Fenderaddict2

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. ;-)

Thank you.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by 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!"

So, less than the current V6 in the Mustang. Quite an upgrade.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

So, less than the current V6 in the Mustang. Quite an upgrade.

Did...you even read his post?

That number came from the 2015 Subaru WRX's 2.0L. You know that's how EXAMPLES work. They aren't the exact thing, just there to reference.

It has already been stated (by me) that the EB2.3L in Lincoln's MKC has an official output of 275hp/300tq. In Mustang it's all but guaranteed to make a fair share more. That's how these engines go. There are more plebian versions of the EB1.6 and EB2.0, and then the ones in performance vehicles such as the ST line. Just to reiterate, expect 310+/310+ when the Mustangs 2.3 numbers are announced.

But let's say for the sake of humouring you that the 2.3 comes with the same 275/300 output. I'd still put money on it handily out performing the current 3.7 equipped cars. It wouldn't be by as large a margin, but the increases in fuel mileage might be its biggest selling point anyway.

[el ess A]

Does someone actually CARE if they put 4-cylinders in a Mustang? It won't affect me. I'll never own a 4-cyl car. Ever. I think all the answers can be found on www.WGAS.com

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by el ess A

Does someone actually CARE if they put 4-cylinders in a Mustang? It won't affect me. I'll never own a 4-cyl car. Ever. I think all the answers can be found on www.WGAS.com

^lawl

What else are we, the V8 buying crowd, going to discuss?

Next-gen Coyote vs LT1? Pfft, this is the internet...who does that?

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

So, less than the current V6 in the Mustang. Quite an upgrade.

All you need to know is that a lightly modded Mustang 2.3 ecoboost with tune will likely be nipping at the heals of a stock Camaro SS running down the drag strip.

I can guarantee you some of them will hit 12s with nothing more than a couple bolt ons, tune, and tires..

Its too bad you can't respect that.

[ford20]

Originally Posted by FINALLYSATISFIED

With the hood bra and all huh? Lmao.

Umm that is a V6 also so I guess that was a bad example of muscle car lol

Originally Posted by DGthe3

No matter how good the system is, turbo lag will still be present. Its less than it used to be but you can't fight the basic mechanics of how turbocharging works. Its based off of a feedback loop: exhaust drives turbine to draw more air, which creates more exhaust which drives the turbine even harder. Clever little system, but it takes time. No amount of light-weighting the turbo, using super bearings, or using the the turbo as the exhaust manifold will eliminate that cycle time. The only way to completely eliminate it would be to have an externally driven turbo that feeds directly into the intake (or replaces the intake itself) whose air output is tied to the engine RPM. Such devices exists, we usually call them 'super chargers'

It was somebody else talking about power bands

Cost ... well, if it isn't a better engine overall I don't see any justification for a higher pricetag. We'll see what the numbers are in a few months. But I'm going to guess that the 'combined output' of hp+torque will be about the same between the V6 and T4. And if the price of fueling them is the same too (with any fuel economy benefit negated by recomending premium or at least midgrade) I don't see any real value being added. I understand the added cost ... but if it doesn't do anything for me, its not worth anything to me.

The engines in Evo's and STi's are slightly different beasts than the Ecoboasts. If past history is anything to go by, the 2.3 will be 'strengthened' but not fully forged. And I wouldn't trust an engine producing 200 hp/L with hyper-eut pistons.

Of course, the V6 will also eventually reach a point where its going to need to be built to support FI too. And after it hits it, there will probably be a bit of a window where its cheaper to hit XYZ hp with a turbo 4. But after that .... hold on, this is just getting ridiculous. If there is anyone out there that wants to make a 600 hp+ Mustang 'the hard way' (without a V8) ... chances are, they don't really care how much it costs to do so.

The 2.3 will be a forged motor, it gets forged crank, rods and high strength pistons. The biggest problems that the ecoboost motors have is they run out of fuel before anything else. That is the limiting factor more then anything else.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Did...you even read his post?

That number came from the 2015 Subaru WRX's 2.0L. You know that's how EXAMPLES work. They aren't the exact thing, just there to reference.

It has already been stated (by me) that the EB2.3L in Lincoln's MKC has an official output of 275hp/300tq. In Mustang it's all but guaranteed to make a fair share more. That's how these engines go. There are more plebian versions of the EB1.6 and EB2.0, and then the ones in performance vehicles such as the ST line. Just to reiterate, expect 310+/310+ when the Mustangs 2.3 numbers are announced.

But let's say for the sake of humouring you that the 2.3 comes with the same 275/300 output. I'd still put money on it handily out performing the current 3.7 equipped cars. It wouldn't be by as large a margin, but the increases in fuel mileage might be its biggest selling point anyway.

Yeah, I read his post. It's gonzo speculation, and mostly driven by high hopes, not reality. The V6 is real, don't knock it.

Here's an example of that: Earlier this year, talk was the next gen Mustang was going to weigh 500 pounds less than the current model. Now, fans are hoping it's 200 pounds less.

It might actually weigh more. That's reality, and it even happens to Mustangs...

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Originally Posted by Fenderaddict2

Are we not overlooking the biggest advantage of the new 4 over the 6?

And herein lies the answer to the infamous "200 lb. lighter" suggestion given by Ford. It's NOT "across the board", it's THIS Model only vs. an S197 V6 base.

[trademaster]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Yeah, I read his post. It's gonzo speculation, and mostly driven by high hopes, not reality. The V6 is real, don't knock it.

Here's an example of that: Earlier this year, talk was the next gen Mustang was going to weigh 500 pounds less than the current model. Now, fans are hoping it's 200 pounds less.

It might actually weigh more. That's reality, and it even happens to Mustangs...

I've offered up facts. Current engines and official statements from Ford. What's your position based on? You still haven't posted one logical counter-point. More, "whaaaaaa" is all I'm hearing from you.

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

So, less than the current V6 in the Mustang. Quite an upgrade.

7% less peak torque than the v6 on a much broader curve (2,250rpm earlier than peak torque for the v6) with 13% less displacement than the coming Ecoboost. Not exactly making your point there chief.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by trademaster

I've offered up facts. Current engines and official statements from Ford. What's your position based on? You still haven't posted one logical counter-point. More, "whaaaaaa" is all I'm hearing from you.

You extrapolated from other power plants, made by different manufacturers. Nothing you posted is a fact regarding Ford's engine. You don't know what the new Ford 4 cylinder will do, you're guessing. We do know what the V6 will do, and that Ford wanted to replace the V6 with the T4, but decided they couldn't.

Now that's only a statement from Ford, and not on the same level of "fact" as imagining the performance of a imaginarily slightly larger engine from a different manufacturer, and then imagining Ford will get it with their brand new engine. So take it for what it's worth.

Originally Posted by trademaster

7% less peak torque than the v6 on a much broader curve (2,250rpm earlier than peak torque for the v6) with 13% less displacement than the coming Ecoboost. Not exactly making your point there chief.

The Mustang V6 has about the same torque breadth, just a little choppier. And adding displacement doesn't necessarily mean concurrent power gains in FI.