Projected 2.3 Ecoboost Mustang Specs

[Zakspeed]

I work for Breedt Product Design we are doing Focus ST parts now and are hoping to get into the Mustang market this fall.

http://www.breedtproductdesign.com/

Sponsored

 

[itsaturbobutnotasweknowit]

Here's my projection for the power output of the Ecoboost Mustang. It will be between 322 hp and ... 388 hp. Why is that? :-)

1) at 125hp/liter (spec of the current most powerful three cilinders ecoboost Ford makes) => gives: 2,3 l x 125 hp/l = 287,5 hp (which is I hear you guys/girls are saying is the Lincoln's hp figure)

or

2) I just happen to read on a Dutch auto site, Ford will make a Ford Fiesta Sport version with 140 hp out of the same 1 liter three-cilinder ecoboost. This gives: 2,3 l x 140 hp/l = 322 hp.

or

3) since the Peugeot RCZ R also uses a twin scroll turbo on a 4 cilinder 1,6 l engine and is able to get 270 hp out of it, you get a 168,75 hp/l. If Ford can equal that you get a very high 2,3 l x 168,75 hp/l = 388 hp.

 

[86GT]

Here's my projection for the power output of the Ecoboost Mustang. It will be between 322 hp and ... 388 hp. Why is that? :-)

1) at 125hp/liter (spec of the current most powerful three cilinders ecoboost Ford makes) => gives: 2,3 l x 125 hp/l = 287,5 hp (which is I hear you guys/girls are saying is the Lincoln's hp figure)

or

2) I just happen to read on a Dutch auto site, Ford will make a Ford Fiesta Sport version with 140 hp out of the same 1 liter three-cilinder ecoboost. This gives: 2,3 l x 140 hp/l = 322 hp.

or

3) since the Peugeot RCZ R also uses a twin scroll turbo on a 4 cilinder 1,6 l engine and is able to get 270 hp out of it, you get a 168,75 hp/l. If Ford can equal that you get a very high 2,3 l x 168,75 hp/l = 388 hp.

322 is much more probable than 388 lol. Anything over 330 would be a shock to me. I plan on buying a Focus ST or RS for my next car, but if the Mustang came with 330+ hp I think I'd learn to live with RWD and the snow.

 

[Grimace427]

Here's my projection for the power output of the Ecoboost Mustang. It will be between 322 hp and ... 388 hp. Why is that? :-)

1) at 125hp/liter (spec of the current most powerful three cilinders ecoboost Ford makes) => gives: 2,3 l x 125 hp/l = 287,5 hp (which is I hear you guys/girls are saying is the Lincoln's hp figure)

or

2) I just happen to read on a Dutch auto site, Ford will make a Ford Fiesta Sport version with 140 hp out of the same 1 liter three-cilinder ecoboost. This gives: 2,3 l x 140 hp/l = 322 hp.

or

3) since the Peugeot RCZ R also uses a twin scroll turbo on a 4 cilinder 1,6 l engine and is able to get 270 hp out of it, you get a 168,75 hp/l. If Ford can equal that you get a very high 2,3 l x 168,75 hp/l = 388 hp.

Hp/l doesn't scale up very well. A 600cc motorcycle engine can make 120hp naturally aspirated, or 200hp/l. That would mean the 5.0 Coyote would make 1,000hp which is not very realistic.

 

[itsaturbobutnotasweknowit]

322 is much more probable than 388 lol. Anything over 330 would be a shock to me. I plan on buying a Focus ST or RS for my next car, but if the Mustang came with 330+ hp I think I'd learn to live with RWD and the snow.

I was just having a bit of fun with these numbers. The Lincoln's hp fitted in these calculations, really nice. This 140 hp/l will also see the light of day (soon), so this 322 might be the most realistic guess. The 388 hp, with Peugeot's engine in mind is probably way to far out, but one may always dream, right :-). By the way, Peugeot's Sport division is responsible for the 168hp/l figure. The most powerful and regular RCZ has 200 hp (or 125 hp/l). These same hp/l keep coming back, so why not use them to do some educated guessing :cheers:

 

[itsaturbobutnotasweknowit]

Hp/l doesn't scale up very well. A 600cc motorcycle engine can make 120hp naturally aspirated, or 200hp/l. That would mean the 5.0 Coyote would make 1,000hp which is not very realistic.

I am using car engine specs, not motorcycle engine specs. You can put a motorcycle engine in your car if you want, I am not, and Ford will not do it either :-)

I am using real numbers from cars that drive around today or will drive around in the very near future.

 

[Grimace427]

I am using car engine specs, not motorcycle engine specs. You can put a motorcycle engine in your car if you want, I am not, and Ford will not do it either :-)

I am using real numbers from cars that drive around today or will drive around in the very near future.

That is irrelevant to my point. The smaller the engine, the easier it is to have a high HP/L ratio(example of the 600cc engine given). Once you make the engine bigger it will produce less power per liter of displacement. All of your numbers came from very small engines and you assumed the HP/L ratio would scale up to the larger engines, which is unrealistic.

 

[EXP Jawa]

Grimace427's point was still valid - as displacement scales up, the inertia that has to overcome by the engine's rotating assembly becomes much greater, so an engine's ability to rev high becomes more limited. That's important, because the higher an engine revs, the more power it can generate per unit displacement.

Small displacements can generate higher hp/L numbers because they generate that HP in RPM ranges that conventional larger engines don't run at, but they do so with low torque output (as is often the case in bike engines, or really any Honda car engine). When engines become very large, they spin at lower speeds, generate monster torque, but low HP.

So, all that is to establish the point that HP/L doesn't scale well, it essentially gets taken out of context too easily. So, using HP/L numbers from a small engine from company X to project what a larger engine will produce only works when the displacement differences are relatively small. Even less so when the larger engine is manufactured by company Y. The difference from 1.0L to 2.3L is pretty significant, as its more than double.

 

[itsaturbobutnotasweknowit]

Grimace427's point was still valid - as displacement scales up, the inertia that has to overcome by the engine's rotating assembly becomes much greater, so an engine's ability to rev high becomes more limited. That's important, because the higher an engine revs, the more power it can generate per unit displacement.

Small displacements can generate higher hp/L numbers because they generate that HP in RPM ranges that conventional larger engines don't run at, but they do so with low torque output (as is often the case in bike engines, or really any Honda car engine). When engines become very large, they spin at lower speeds, generate monster torque, but low HP.

So, all that is to establish the point that HP/L doesn't scale well, it essentially gets taken out of context too easily. So, using HP/L numbers from a small engine from company X to project what a larger engine will produce only works when the displacement differences are relatively small. Even less so when the larger engine is manufactured by company Y. The difference from 1.0L to 2.3L is pretty significant, as its more than double.

I'll end with this: some people are very good at reading stuff that just isn't there just to ... (just fill in)

And you are wrong that the jump from 1.0 to 2,3 is that big of a jump that the hp/l numbers don't hold up. Have a look at the hp/l numbers European car manufacturers squeeze out of their mass-manufactured engines. Have a look at sportier Audi 2.0L and 2.5L versions of the A3, Mercedes AMG A class. You'll see that 140 - 160 HP/l (even more with Mercedes) can be done with these 2.0 - 2,5 liter engines. Now you are going to say that the jump from 2.0 to 2,3 liter is a lot, I guess.

I'll now really end with: I never made a generalisation when I used these hp/l numbers. That was done by other people, I didn't go beyond 2,3 liter in my estimate. And I can think of so much other reasons (economical, reliability, ...) why you don't see these high HP/l numbers with bigger displacement engines that are mass-produced, whatever the physics may be behind it.

 

[itsaturbobutnotasweknowit]

Here is another example. Audi's TT-S uses a 2.0 liter turbo engine with 310 HP.
The only reason why these sportier versions are not mass-produced, despite getting a manufacturer-guarantee, is because they are too expensive for average people. If 10x more people were able to buy these more sportier cars, all these manufacturers will be able to mass-produce these cars at 10x.
If Ford sells the Ecoboost Mustang with more than 305 HP in Europe at a price point that is comparable to the dollar prices we know today, I think the Ecoboost can be a massive hit in Europe, because the majority of the German sportier cars are more expensive (especially if you start to add options). The only thing that MIGHT stand in its way is the looks of the car, because it's still remains an in-your-face car, it really has a presence. I like it, but to some it might be too sturdy (I hope Google Translate did a good job with that word "sturdy") :-).

 

[itsaturbobutnotasweknowit]

Official words of Ford: "more than 305 HP for the Ecoboost". That is > 132 hp/liter. This number will not go down, because Ford managers have repeated this over and over again. And there is enough documentation putting these numbers black-on-white.

 

[scottpe]

The only thing that MIGHT stand in its way is the looks of the car, because it's still remains an in-your-face car, it really has a presence. I like it, but to some it might be too sturdy (I hope Google Translate did a good job with that word "sturdy") :-).

I think Google Translate fell a little short with the translation. I'm guessing English word you were looking for is "bold" or "aggressive"...

Either way, your point was understandable.

 

[itsaturbobutnotasweknowit]

I think Google Translate fell a little short with the translation. I'm guessing English word you were looking for is "bold" or "aggressive"...

Either way, your point was understandable.

Indeed, that is the word I was looking for :-). Thx!
On the subject ... I'll give it a rest :amen:

 

[Firepath]

:lol: That's gold!

Sponsored