2015 Mustang

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Those SVO`s were super cool looking cars! I wonder how that turbo 4 held up to abuse compared to the V8`s? Ford had some killer looking turbo 4`s during that time,the SVO,turbo Thunderbird,and the turbo Taurus SHO (didn`t these also all have manual trannies?). Did they all share the same engine?


The Turbo T Bird and SVO pony shared the same engine and manual gearbox (I believe an auto was available on the Bird).
I'm not sure if the Turbo Birds ever got the later model year SVO's intercooler or not.

The 1st gen SHO had a Yamaha developed, DOHC per bank, 4 valve per cylinder NA V-6 with a 5 speed manual.

The latter gen SHOs had a Yamaha developed, 32 valve, quad cammed, NA V-8 with ONLY a slushbox available.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The 'Speed6 is AWD.


IF they could have fit this drivetrain in the Speed 3, they would have had a nice little rally machine on their hands (like a 323 GTX on steroids!).

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver

I'm not sure if the Turbo Birds ever got the later model year SVO's intercooler or not.

Yep. There was an automatic Thunderbird Turbo Coupe.

The one I drove was beautiful, white, and made you painfully aware of how much turbo lag that engine had.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Those mid-late 80s turbo Thunderbirds were BEAUTIFUL cars!! My favorite was the all blacked out one with the red stripe around the middle.

 

[Zako2]

Another interesting thing about 3.7 V6 vs 2.3L EB is that the 3.7L gives you +300HP while running on standard fuel. However, to get the rated horse power of the Ford EB engines in cars like Focus ST or Fusion with 2.0L EB engines, you have to run them on premium gas. On regular, you're going to see about 10% drop in power. So if the 2.3L EB engine gives you 330HP with premium, then with regular gas it will be no better than 3.7L V6. Nonetheless, this won't stop Ford from hyping the EB as the "more premium than V6" engine.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: Zako2
Another interesting thing about 3.7 V6 vs 2.3L EB is that the 3.7L gives you +300HP while running on standard fuel. However, to get the rated horse power of the Ford EB engines in cars like Focus ST or Fusion with 2.0L EB engines, you have to run them on premium gas. On regular, you're going to see about 10% drop in power. So if the 2.3L EB engine gives you 330HP with premium, then with regular gas it will be no better than 3.7L V6. Nonetheless, this won't stop Ford from hyping the EB as the "more premium than V6" engine.


There is no question the EB engines perform a bit better on premium, not sure it's a full 10%, more like 5% I think. However, they don't need premium, and that is the "cool" thing about them. On trips, for example, where it's just highway cruising, regular gas works just fine and returns equal economy.

BUT, I'll bet you a dollar the 2.3 EB engine has a good bit more torque at low and mid range RPM than the somewhat doggy, heavier and larger, but high HP 3.7L V6 Therefore if calibrated right, promises to be a whole lot more fun to drive. 23 pounds boost in a 2.3L is roughly equivalent to the torque of a 5.7L engine. With the trade-off coming in high RPM HP (small turbo is restrictive) .

 

[rslifkin]

In a friend's Ecoboost F-150, he's done some testing with 87 vs 93. In normal driving, 93 is worth almost 1 mpg on average (unless you hardly ever let it into boost). The power gain from the higher octane fuel isn't dramatic, but it's just enough to notice.

 

[Cujet]

Looks like Ford is claiming 300 foot pounds torque @ 2300RPM from the 2.3L EB. That's a far cry from the 211 Lb/ft torque the 3.7L produces at the same RPM. The 3.7 gets to 278 Lb/ft at 4200. Not to mention the 200 pounds weight savings of the EB.

I "want" to believe it will be fun. But time will tell. Certainly the current V6 is annoyingly doggy at low RPM. And, there is no question the big V8 will be the "real" choice.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Looks like Ford is claiming 300 foot pounds torque @ 2300RPM from the 2.3L EB. That's a far cry from the 211 Lb/ft torque the 3.7L produces at the same RPM. The 3.7 gets to 278 Lb/ft at 4200. Not to mention the 200 pounds weight savings of the EB.

I "want" to believe it will be fun. But time will tell. Certainly the current V6 is annoyingly doggy at low RPM. And, there is no question the big V8 will be the "real" choice.


I noticed that when I drove my mom's 3.7 Mustang. The ancient 4.0 boat anchor of an engine was more engaging at lower rpms. Up top? The 3.7 crushes the Cologne but exiting a corner at 2000 or so rpm and it feels slower than my PT Cruiser

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Looks like Ford is claiming 300 foot pounds torque @ 2300RPM from the 2.3L EB. That's a far cry from the 211 Lb/ft torque the 3.7L produces at the same RPM. The 3.7 gets to 278 Lb/ft at 4200. Not to mention the 200 pounds weight savings of the EB.

I "want" to believe it will be fun. But time will tell. Certainly the current V6 is annoyingly doggy at low RPM. And, there is no question the big V8 will be the "real" choice.


The 2.0EB has lots of low end torque and the boost comes on right away in the Focuscape. I bet a 2.3EB, 6 speed mustang (without 3.07 gearing) would be pretty fun.



Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Looks like Ford is claiming 300 foot pounds torque @ 2300RPM from the 2.3L EB. That's a far cry from the 211 Lb/ft torque the 3.7L produces at the same RPM. The 3.7 gets to 278 Lb/ft at 4200. Not to mention the 200 pounds weight savings of the EB.

I "want" to believe it will be fun. But time will tell. Certainly the current V6 is annoyingly doggy at low RPM. And, there is no question the big V8 will be the "real" choice.


Modern engines really like to rev!

I noticed that when I drove my mom's 3.7 Mustang. The ancient 4.0 boat anchor of an engine was more engaging at lower rpms. Up top? The 3.7 crushes the Cologne but exiting a corner at 2000 or so rpm and it feels slower than my PT Cruiser

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
The 2.0EB has lots of low end torque and the boost comes on right away in the Focuscape. I bet a 2.3EB, 6 speed mustang (without 3.07 gearing) would be pretty fun.


Just imagine what this powerplant would be like in a Focus, or better yet a Fiesta (IF it would fit in these platforms??), especially with a light AWD system.

Yes, that displacement would be beyond the FIA WRC multiplication factor limits, but for the street?

 

[SwampSurvivor]

You can get the 2.0 ecoboast in the Focus ST. Wonder if it would be possible to put an escape engine, trans, PDU and rear differential in a Focus?

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
You can get the 2.0 ecoboast in the Focus ST. Wonder if it would be possible to put an escape engine, trans, PDU and rear differential in a Focus?


I absolutely love driving the Focus ST. The Escape drivetrain seems like a no-brainer. The platforms are quite similar.

 

[Skeet6]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Ford is definitely making some of the best looking cars on the road.

Absolutley. I am surely going to keep my Grabber Orange 2009, but I'd love a 2016 with the turbo 4...
Mike B

 

[Josh_101]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: laserred96gt
I wouldn't buy a 6 cyl mustang, If you want to own a mustang go GT or better.


I appreciate this. But I also appreciate that 300 hp is enough entertainment for me on the street. Combine that with good fuel economy and I could have a great time in a secretary special.

I'd miss the sounds the V-8 makes, but with 450ish horsepower it's not like you can enjoy that sound for long before you're running at arrest-me speeds. Then there's the price difference... ~$23k for a base model? You'll be able to get a really nicely equipped V-6 model for the price of a bare bones V-8... if I'm going to live with a car for a couple hundred thousand miles I wouldn't mind a toy or two in it.


I have a 2013 base v6 Mustang, as far as I'm concerned it's a phenomenal performing car for the price. Look at the GT's from 10 years ago just before the 2005 retro refresh. They started out at 24 to 25 grand, and these new base mustangs beat the pants off of the decade old GT's in every category! (Except if you wanna count exhaust note comparisons hehe) So yeah, for the average joe driver like me, it's plenty powerful especially after a higher octane race tune. It only takes a few seconds for it get over 80 if you punch the gas from 60mph, and it does that while still getting pretty good fuel mileage. This past Christmas I made a 1400 mile round trip to my sister's place in KY (I'm in eastern NC) and it got 33mpg on the return trip back home! That's while I was driving around 75mph most of the way including almost 80mph on some stretches of the trip.

As for the 2015 Mustang, I really like it for the most part. The only thing I can remotely complain about is the tail lights, I kinda wished they had stay closer to the design of the ones my car has. I can easily see myself trading my v6 mustang in for a 2015 2.3 Ecoboost like this one in that same color.

http://forums.themustangsource.com/f806/pics-15-mustang-philly-auto-show-528117/

 

[aquariuscsm]

If I were to ever buy a Mustang,it would be the most stripped down base model GT they make. All I want is the V8 and a standard tranny. No bells/whistles that will break and will cost $$ to fix.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Ford deserves a lot of credit for finally making the Mustang competitive in ALL markets worldwide.

The 2.3 will be in excess of 300 hp, that and a stick should be plenty of juice, plus a much lighter and lower package for outstanding handling. I love the preliminaries, just waiting to see what really makes the cut...

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
If I were to ever buy a Mustang,it would be the most stripped down base model GT they make. All I want is the V8 and a standard tranny. No bells/whistles that will break and will cost $$ to fix.


^^^As well as keeping the heft down, which helps EVERYTHING (diff/gearbox/driveshaft reliability, straight line acceleration, lateral acceleration, turn in, steering response, etc.).