Which engine for 2015 Mustang?

[Norm Peterson]

Just reread this...so we both disagree with S550Boss's statement.

Like I just said, he didn't mean what you thought he meant.


Norm

Sponsored

 

[S550Boss]

Just reread this...so we agree, 550Boss's statement is retarded.

I'll answer now. Then I am dropping this discussion, because we have Ford's strategy already very well explained by them, we have the same strategy from most other manufacturers, and it's pointless to argue every point with you.

I never said the only goal of the EcoBoost 4 cylinder was fuel economy, but it is the prime goal in this specific application. It may or may not be the base engine, we will have to see about that, but it is the top fuel economy choice from a numbers perspective. It will also be a fun engine to drive, as most turbo engines are, and it will reduce weight up front nicely (in an already poorly balanced car).

As to why a turbo? Simple, because it provides the engineers huge flexibility in mapping the engine to it's various constituents (fuel economy, emissions, performance, drivability, etc). Just like independently variable cam timing does, just like an automatic or automated transmission does. These and more technologies provide choice and flexibility in meeting these goals. The turbocharger is especially useful here, since it can vary output across a far broader range than anything else. EcoBoost engines have a fat torque curve.

As all the manufacturers of boosted engines say, the car can be run in normal driving on a smaller engine, with the turbo providing the power equivalent to a bigger engine only when needed. This is better fuel economy generally (although it could be the same under the worst constant boost conditions). But the entire system of all the variables is also far more programmable than a naturally aspirated engine, so the net is that the entire system can be optimized specifically for the Fed fuel economy test cycle. Aka it can stay off the boost for most of the cycle, it can optimize ignition timing, it can upshift to a higher gear, etc etc. This is how we might get a 34 MPG Mustang in the S550, likely with the automatic transmission (likely an 8-speed, if one can be found).

EcoBoost is a system of integrated technologies, not just a turbocharger. It includes friction-optimizations inside the engine, independently variable cams, direct injection (cooling effect, more spark advance, higher compression, better economy), a very carefully sized turbocharger, an intercooler, a couple of other things, and importantly an advanced engine control computer capable of handling vary complex strategies to manage it all.

Mazda has done well so far with their non-turbocharged SkyActive gas engines (and a turbocharged diesel). They'll do a turbocharged engine in the EcoBoost vein sooner or later - when a product needs it (rumor has a small 4 cylinder in the next Miata w/turbo), and when they have the money to develop it (which is in exceedingly short supply right now). This is basically all they can afford right now, and they are making the most out of their limited funds. We all know how well their existing MazdaSpeed engine has done (and I've owned one in an MS6), and remember that it was based on a Ford-designed basic engine, when Ford was still a full partner. Ford Execs had said in the press (at the time) how much they liked that engine... many MS6s were seen in Dearborn... obviously the lessons were not lost.

BMW is doing very well with a strategy similar to Ford's. They have replaced their naturally aspirated inline six with a boosted 4 cylinder that has all the same bits as an EcoBoost (and more). Same comments for their existing family of single- and dual-turbocharged inline sizes. The primary purpose of these engines is to optimize fuel economy and emissions (especially CO2) while providing the performance of a large engine. And then there is the upcoming twin-turbocharged inline 6 M3/4. Which, while fuel economy is not necessarily the first point here, it handily blows away the old V8 M3 (and notably makes seriously more torque) while enormously improving fuel economy and it's CO2 footprint. And they've already got twin-turbocharged V-8s in their bigger cars.

GM, as they recover from Government ownership and their own past blunders, already has a next-generation turbocharged 4 that is a direct competitor to Ford's 2 liter EcoBoost, and in fact it produces higher HP and torque. And powers several different cars right up to the new CTS. It's positioned as a premium engine, and it has a very high take rate. And speaking of the CTS (and very soon the ATS-V), the new twin-turbo V-6 they have just brought out also blows away Ford's EB 3.5 numbers (but we'll give Ford the benefit of the doubt here, since theirs came out first and hasn't been updated yet). They did a phenomenal job there and it's only in it's first iteration.

So this is the new world, this is what's happening, get used to it, like it or not. Meanwhile all of these new EcoBoost engines are also fun to drive and are very economical and clean (the 1 liter Fiesta is a hoot, although I wouldn't be caught in one). It won't be long until Ford offers an EcoBoost engine in every car line, and there is talk inside of being 100% EcoBoost in the mid-term future. Think about that that means.

Now lets talk about the EcoBoost 4 in the S550. In my charts, which I put together last year and haven't updated yet (and won't until the embargo is gone - soon) I conservatively estimated that the EcoBoost 2.3 (if it is a 2.3 and not a 2.0 - and some BS rumors even say 2.4 or 2.5), there is no public information here yet) would make 300 HP and 310 torque. It might be higher or lower... that engine is probably still in the middle stages of emissions and mileage calibration now so we don't have a final number.

Also, assuming a 200 pound weight decrease overall (which they have said will be a challenge) and no options, it's possible that the EcoBoost 4 Mustang will be extraordinarily light - maybe as light as [my estimate] 3,299 pounds - unless it's optioned to the hilt. Which it is likely to be the case given all the new options being offered. Nonetheless, it is EPA rated without being loaded with options. I think it could make 34/highway with an 8-speed auto (if there is such a thing in 2015. Of course it could make a better number, but would be less fun to drive - or less and it would be more fun to drive but less economical. With EcoBoost, you can tune it electronically to whatever the goal is).

It also could have a terrific fr/rr weight balance, and that will make the steering that much better over a V-8. This will be a really torquey engine, and a fun car to own and to drive. I'm also hoping, like the earlier poster, that it is offered with a performance suspension and braking system. SVOs have done extraordinarily well, and while this is absolutely not an SVO, it would be even more successful in autocross.

And the EcoBoost 4 Mustang is not just for Europeans (who need the minimal displacement to help with their very high taxes) but for enthusiasts here too. It will come as a shock to some people on this board, but not everybody wants or can afford a V-8. Nor has the Mustang been solely a V-8 car or even primarily a V-8 car for the last 40 years. There has been a big and growing market for non V-8 Mustangs, especially when they are loaded up with options (something Ford has put even more emphasis on since 2011). These are then higher volume cars, and Ford now knows how to make a fat margin on them. And with the huge range of options coming for 2015, that margin will be even bigger. This extra revenue, and new-found revenue from worldwide sales, will benefit us all and justify the even higher performance engines we all want for special models.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

where S550 only talks about supporting CAFE. There is a difference between supporting CAFE and making it your car powertrain's prime directive.

Originally Posted by S550Boss
You missed the point... sure anything is possible, but that's not the mission of this engine. It's mission is to support the CAFE average. That means it won't get 350 HP.

This is the argument at hand, presented by 550.

A. High horsepower and CAFE cannot coexist
B. This engine's 'mission is to support the CAFE average'
C. Therefore, this engine 'won't get 350 HP'

'A' is not necessarily true. 'B' is not necessarily true. There is no way 550 can conclude 'C'. Sorry, I can't make it any clearer than that.

Originally Posted by Herr_Poopschitz
If it's sole mission was CAFE, why turbo it?

Note my use of the word 'if'. It's a very important word. I gave him an opportunity to correct my understanding of his statement (if it were incorrect) or give a more detailed explanation of his position, but instead he responded w/ some nonsense about how I don't understand the industry...w/ no facts or anything quantifiable. I would assume he's a big boy and can defend himself...hell, he's from TX, right? He doesn't need you to try to do it for him.

Why aren't you reading everything I type for comprehension.

Sorry Norm, some of your posts are a bit long-winded and my time is valuable. It was an honest mistake, I was either distracted, or maybe I nodded off when you started talking about your daughter's Dart. This is why I went back and deleted some of what I had written. That's fair, isn't it?

 

[S550Boss]

No, Herr Poop., it's not fair, because now you are backpedaling.

One of the people that I think are (was) one of the real heroes inside Ford is Derrick Kuzak, Group VP for Global Product Development. He is now retired, unfortunately. But he made the first video explaining EcoBoost technologies, back when it was only 1 engine.
This not only discusses the strategy and why it makes sense, it shows us why the EcoBoost engines are more fun for us.

Derrick was one of the rare people who could lead people, lead engineering, and explain the corporate strategy in very clear and straightforward terms.

Since then, as the strategy expands to additional engines, there have been many more videos and press releases.

And, Norm, your posts are not long winded. They are invaluable and fair. Keep them coming.

 

[Overboost]

The 2.3 is going to be a "premium" engine offering, with similar power to the V6, but with additional fuel economy. 2-3 mpg would be a fair guess. It'll help CAFE, but not as much as some might think. The real heavy hitters are the trucks, small/midsize sedans and crossovers. Selling (at most) 100,000 units a year, you don't have the same impact as a vehicle that sells 250,000...or 650,000 for that matter.

3.7 will be the base engine. Bare bones, rental equipped models will be the norm.

2.3 GTDI will be the optional engine for the base trim. Maybe a $995 upgrade, but will enable multiple options that the base trim can't get (like Base GT/Premium GT now).

5.0 V8 will be available with base/premium trims. Performance focused options only on the base, with the full gamut of options available on the Premium.

 

[Norm Peterson]

This is the argument at hand, presented by 550.

A. High horsepower and CAFE cannot coexist
B. This engine's 'mission is to support the CAFE average'
C. Therefore, this engine 'won't get 350 HP'

'A' is not necessarily true. 'B' is not necessarily true. There is no way 550 can conclude 'C'. Sorry, I can't make it any clearer than that.

I guess we just read it differently.

To A, at some point high horsepower and CAFE may well be incompatible. Maybe I should make that high peak HP, considering that in EPA testing you shouldn't have to go anywhere near peak HP rpm. But at this point in time the question of compatibility is like asking "how high is up", and none of us here (that I know of) are party to the answer. If anybody is, they aren't talking and I wouldn't expect them to.

Point B - you are still supporting a CAFE average as long as you aren't running below it. As opposed to hurting it by being significantly below it. You only have to "do no harm" here.

C goes right back to the question of how high is up, except with a number included.


Norm

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

I'll answer now. Then I am dropping this discussion, because we have Ford's strategy already very well explained by them, we have the same strategy from most other manufacturers, and it's pointless to argue every point with you.

I never said the only goal of the EcoBoost 4 cylinder was fuel economy, but it is the prime goal in this specific application. It may or may not be the base engine, we will have to see about that, but it is the top fuel economy choice from a numbers perspective. It will also be a fun engine to drive, as most turbo engines are, and it will reduce weight up front nicely (in an already poorly balanced car).

As to why a turbo? Simple, because it provides the engineers huge flexibility in mapping the engine to it's various constituents (fuel economy, emissions, performance, drivability, etc). Just like independently variable cam timing does, just like an automatic or automated transmission does. These and more technologies provide choice and flexibility in meeting these goals. The turbocharger is especially useful here, since it can vary output across a far broader range than anything else. EcoBoost engines have a fat torque curve.

As all the manufacturers of boosted engines say, the car can be run in normal driving on a smaller engine, with the turbo providing the power equivalent to a bigger engine only when needed. This is better fuel economy generally (although it could be the same under the worst constant boost conditions). But the entire system of all the variables is also far more programmable than a naturally aspirated engine, so the net is that the entire system can be optimized specifically for the Fed fuel economy test cycle. Aka it can stay off the boost for most of the cycle, it can optimize ignition timing, it can upshift to a higher gear, etc etc. This is how we might get a 34 MPG Mustang in the S550, likely with the automatic transmission (likely an 8-speed, if one can be found).

EcoBoost is a system of integrated technologies, not just a turbocharger. It includes friction-optimizations inside the engine, independently variable cams, direct injection (cooling effect, more spark advance, higher compression, better economy), a very carefully sized turbocharger, an intercooler, a couple of other things, and importantly an advanced engine control computer capable of handling vary complex strategies to manage it all.

Mazda has done well so far with their non-turbocharged SkyActive gas engines (and a turbocharged diesel). They'll do a turbocharged engine in the EcoBoost vein sooner or later - when a product needs it (rumor has a small 4 cylinder in the next Miata w/turbo), and when they have the money to develop it (which is in exceedingly short supply right now). This is basically all they can afford right now, and they are making the most out of their limited funds. We all know how well their existing MazdaSpeed engine has done (and I've owned one in an MS6), and remember that it was based on a Ford-designed basic engine, when Ford was still a full partner. Ford Execs had said in the press (at the time) how much they liked that engine... many MS6s were seen in Dearborn... obviously the lessons were not lost.

BMW is doing very well with a strategy similar to Ford's. They have replaced their naturally aspirated inline six with a boosted 4 cylinder that has all the same bits as an EcoBoost (and more). Same comments for their existing family of single- and dual-turbocharged inline sizes. The primary purpose of these engines is to optimize fuel economy and emissions (especially CO2) while providing the performance of a large engine. And then there is the upcoming twin-turbocharged inline 6 M3/4. Which, while fuel economy is not necessarily the first point here, it handily blows away the old V8 M3 (and notably makes seriously more torque) while enormously improving fuel economy and it's CO2 footprint. And they've already got twin-turbocharged V-8s in their bigger cars.

GM, as they recover from Government ownership and their own past blunders, already has a next-generation turbocharged 4 that is a direct competitor to Ford's 2 liter EcoBoost, and in fact it produces higher HP and torque. And powers several different cars right up to the new CTS. It's positioned as a premium engine, and it has a very high take rate. And speaking of the CTS (and very soon the ATS-V), the new twin-turbo V-6 they have just brought out also blows away Ford's EB 3.5 numbers (but we'll give Ford the benefit of the doubt here, since theirs came out first and hasn't been updated yet). They did a phenomenal job there and it's only in it's first iteration.

So this is the new world, this is what's happening, get used to it, like it or not. Meanwhile all of these new EcoBoost engines are also fun to drive and are very economical and clean (the 1 liter Fiesta is a hoot, although I wouldn't be caught in one). It won't be long until Ford offers an EcoBoost engine in every car line, and there is talk inside of being 100% EcoBoost in the mid-term future. Think about that that means.

Now lets talk about the EcoBoost 4 in the S550. In my charts, which I put together last year and haven't updated yet (and won't until the embargo is gone - soon) I conservatively estimated that the EcoBoost 2.3 (if it is a 2.3 and not a 2.0 - and some BS rumors even say 2.4 or 2.5), there is no public information here yet) would make 300 HP and 310 torque. It might be higher or lower... that engine is probably still in the middle stages of emissions and mileage calibration now so we don't have a final number.

Also, assuming a 200 pound weight decrease overall (which they have said will be a challenge) and no options, it's possible that the EcoBoost 4 Mustang will be extraordinarily light - maybe as light as [my estimate] 3,299 pounds - unless it's optioned to the hilt. Which it is likely to be the case given all the new options being offered. Nonetheless, it is EPA rated without being loaded with options. I think it could make 34/highway with an 8-speed auto (if there is such a thing in 2015. Of course it could make a better number, but would be less fun to drive - or less and it would be more fun to drive but less economical. With EcoBoost, you can tune it electronically to whatever the goal is).

It also could have a terrific fr/rr weight balance, and that will make the steering that much better over a V-8. This will be a really torquey engine, and a fun car to own and to drive. I'm also hoping, like the earlier poster, that it is offered with a performance suspension and braking system. SVOs have done extraordinarily well, and while this is absolutely not an SVO, it would be even more successful in autocross.

And the EcoBoost 4 Mustang is not just for Europeans (who need the minimal displacement to help with their very high taxes) but for enthusiasts here too. It will come as a shock to some people on this board, but not everybody wants or can afford a V-8. Nor has the Mustang been solely a V-8 car or even primarily a V-8 car for the last 40 years. There has been a big and growing market for non V-8 Mustangs, especially when they are loaded up with options (something Ford has put even more emphasis on since 2011). These are then higher volume cars, and Ford now knows how to make a fat margin on them. And with the huge range of options coming for 2015, that margin will be even bigger. This extra revenue, and new-found revenue from worldwide sales, will benefit us all and justify the even higher performance engines we all want for special models.

I believe most of us already know most of this, but a couple things do jump out at me:

I never said the only goal of the EcoBoost 4 cylinder was fuel economy, but it is the prime goal in this specific application.

1. Woulda been nice had you simply explained yourself when given the opportunity in the first place.

This is how we might get a 34 MPG Mustang in the S550, likely with the automatic transmission (likely an 8-speed, if one can be found).

2. Where are you getting 34 from? I keep thinking if they get the aero right, it doesn't seem unreasonable to see even higher than that...

3. Since when is there talk of an 8 speed? I thought the latest news was the joint GM/Ford 10?

We all know how well their existing MazdaSpeed engine has done (and I've owned one in an MS6)

4. Did yours end up w/ a hole in the side of the block like they were known for?

And speaking of the CTS (and very soon the ATS-V), the new twin-turbo V-6 they have just brought out also blows away Ford's EB 3.5 numbers

5. I bet once you see the actual differences in the 3.5 and 3.6 you'll see the GM #'s as not all that exceptional. Also, if Delphi is supplying any of the parts...good luck.

 

[Black GT]

Here's the answer to the horsepower/CAFE issue.


The time correlation functions involving heat and particle fluxes in a binary argon-krypton mixture with Lennard-Jones interactions are found using both isoenergetic and isokinetic equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations. The heat-current–diffusion-current cross function does not appear to have been evaluated before. The Green-Kubo integral of this function has nearly canceling positive and negative parts and so is not a good way of obtaining the Soret or Dufour coefficient. Integration of the diffusion-current autocorrelation function yields a value for the mutual diffusion coefficient in agreement with an earlier nonequilibrium simulation but at variance with previous isoenergetic (or Newtonian) equilibrium simulation results. It is conjectured on the basis of these results that isokinetic simulations may have smaller system-size dependence than isoenergetic ones.

 

[mustangfamily03]

Here's the answer to the horsepower/CAFE issue.


The time correlation functions involving heat and particle fluxes in a binary argon-krypton mixture with Lennard-Jones interactions are found using both isoenergetic and isokinetic equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations. The heat-current–diffusion-current cross function does not appear to have been evaluated before. The Green-Kubo integral of this function has nearly canceling positive and negative parts and so is not a good way of obtaining the Soret or Dufour coefficient. Integration of the diffusion-current autocorrelation function yields a value for the mutual diffusion coefficient in agreement with an earlier nonequilibrium simulation but at variance with previous isoenergetic (or Newtonian) equilibrium simulation results. It is conjectured on the basis of these results that isokinetic simulations may have smaller system-size dependence than isoenergetic ones.

OMG Really? And I thought we would never use any of the stuff we learned in those classes!??! Should have paid attention... :doh:

 

[mustangfamily03]

Personally I would have liked to have seen a 300hp I4 base, Then a 3.5 EB at the current SHO power level, and a 465 - 485 hp 5.0 GT. Just because it will provide a little more diversity between the models. I don't know how I feel about the more powerful motors, well I'm actually not that worried about it, but the speculation has been everywhere. I keep seeing posts about a GT350 replacing the GT500 and so on. For this, Ford is different than GM in this aspect: The usually make sense with organization of models. V6, GT, Boss 302, GT500. This makes sense. GT350 > GT500 doesn't make sense. Some are saying the Trinity 5.8 won't fit, others are saying it will.

I think if Ford is coming out with a GT350, it will be a track car to compete with the Z/28 or beat it, whatever you prefer. They will either have a Cobra or GT500 for the top end car that will have a 5.0 turbo or a 5.8 SC. They have to keep a high end car to stay on top of the hp wars and to compete with the upcoming Camaro redesign and the Dodge Cuda or whatever it is they decide to come out. That Hemi will be a contender if they put it in a light enough car.

Just my speculation and opinion, nothing more. But putting the pieces together, this seems logical. Don't judge me!

 

[gojensen]

I want a V8 (or rather I want that rumble - I'll never be able use anything more than 200hp anyways) - however I'm guessing it's too expensive so I'll end up with the I4 (not sure they'll even sell the V6 in Europe). That said, I can "barely" afford the twin-turbo 3.0L I6 in the BMW 435i (about 300hp) so maaaaybe?

 

[mustangfamily03]

I want a V8 (or rather I want that rumble - I'll never be able use anything more than 200hp anyways) - however I'm guessing it's too expensive so I'll end up with the I4 (not sure they'll even sell the V6 in Europe). That said, I can "barely" afford the twin-turbo 3.0L I6 in the BMW 435i (about 300hp) so maaaaybe?

I don't want to hate on the Shelby fans, but I was hoping for a SVT Cobra at the top of the stables. If not a GT500 will do.

Hey, I have never owned a mustang that did not have a V8, except an 89 lx I4 with a seized up motor that I dropped a 302 in, but I wouldn't mind a I4 turbo or a 3.5 turbo V6. Not big on the 3.7, but it is a great motor that is smooth and powerful. It just takes to much to get a noticable difference in power with upgrades.
I enjoy turbo motors, considering I have an EB 3.5 F-150, but I find them facinating to drive because of the low end torque and solid power band.

I say do what you can afford, and run the piss out of it. Either way you'll be happy. All else fails you could get a CD or something that plays V8 sounds and pretend...

 

[shelbystang]

I am happy with the power on the current 5.0 420 HP 32 valve engine. With the 6 spd. manual and 3.73 rear end that car is a screamer at high RPM's.

 

[Seabee1973]

The 5.0 engine

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[shelbystang]

The 32 valve 5.0 engine.

Sponsored