0-60 time for Ecoboost w/basic bolt-ons & tune?

[petraman]

My personal fairy tale goal is to try and make stock Mustang GT power levels with full bolt on parts

That's what I've been hoping for!

I use your tune for the ST and I'm in love with it... completely transformed the car! Although I'd love to transfer my current AP to the Mustang, buying another is definitely worth it

Sponsored

 

[mustangkeeper]

Unfortunately, the factory turbo is already running at 18psi...so not much
headroom left on 93 octane fuel. Looks like it will be expensive to wring
out much more tq/hp, considering you have to upgrade in a balanced way: intake,
exhaust, ecu, fuel inj., probably better intercooler, colder plugs, and possibly a
better downpipe with a high flow cat. Not to mention, the factory turbo
will likely be much less efficient at higher boost levels. I think we're very limited : (

 

[stilesg57]

Unfortunately, the factory turbo is already running at 18psi...so not much
headroom left on 93 octane fuel. Looks like it will be expensive to wring
out much more tq/hp, considering you have to upgrade in a balanced way: intake,
exhaust, ecu, fuel inj., probably better intercooler, colder plugs, and possibly a
better downpipe with a high flow cat. Not to mention, the factory turbo
will likely be much less efficient at higher boost levels. I think we're very limited : (

Too early to be too pessimistic or too optimistic. We just don't know yet. Those 2L DI turbo VW motors are getting crazy gains from just a tune, and they run relatively high boost from the factory too.

Cobb AP will let you switch between multiple maps...if octane for boost pressure is the first bottleneck rather than the compressor flow of the stock turbo, I sense an E85 map will become a valuable thing...

 

[mikeyw]

Fiesta ST runs 21psi stock, and there's obviously scope for tuning on that, so well have to see.

Anyone know if the Mustang runs an overboost feature like the Focus and Fiesta?

 

[Dannyho]

I was looking at the product information book that was posted and saw that the V8 gets a different set of transmission gears than the EB and V6.

not surprising but I wanted to see how that affected the cruise rpm/shift points, etc. so i took what i had threw it into a speed in gears calculator.
I had to assume a 6500 rpm redline, although I think i saw it in some pictures. hp is made at 5500, so since that's the same as the ST, I figure it's very possible to have the same redline (although who knows?:shrug

it looks like with the 3.55 gears on the PP, you may have to shift to 3rd to get to 60. i believe that same situation caused the old WRX to be faster to 60 than the STI.
what do you guys think? is 58mph close enough that they can just stretch it out to make their numbers?
obviously this is just for magazine bragging rights, in real life it doesn't really affect the way the car drives.

This is for manual trans cars 3.55:1 PP rear
1 - 4.24 :1
2 - 2.54:1
3 - 1.67:1
4 - 1:1
5 - .7:1
R - 3.84:1

255/40R19 tires

2200rpm at 70mph in 6th sounds good to me though.

 

[mikeyw]

If that's right you'll be shifting from 2nd to 3rd at about 50mph, if peak power is about 5600rpm. 0-60mph times are actually 0-62mph here in the UK at least, because 62mph = 100kph, as used by our friends in Europe. So in other words, it'll definitely need 3rd gear.

 

[w3rkn]

I was looking at the product information book that was posted and saw that the V8 gets a different set of transmission gears than the EB and V6.

not surprising but I wanted to see how that affected the cruise rpm/shift points, etc. so i took what i had threw it into a speed in gears calculator.
I had to assume a 6500 rpm redline, although I think i saw it in some pictures. hp is made at 5500, so since that's the same as the ST, I figure it's very possible to have the same redline (although who knows?:shrug

it looks like with the 3.55 gears on the PP, you may have to shift to 3rd to get to 60. i believe that same situation caused the old WRX to be faster to 60 than the STI.
what do you guys think? is 58mph close enough that they can just stretch it out to make their numbers?
obviously this is just for magazine bragging rights, in real life it doesn't really affect the way the car drives.

This is for manual trans cars 3.55:1 PP rear
1 - 4.24 :1
2 - 2.54:1
3 - 1.67:1
4 - 1:1
5 - .7:1
R - 3.84:1

255/40R19 tires

2200rpm at 70mph in 6th sounds good to me though.

I was playing with similar numbers in my head. Glad someone went thru the leg work on some actual data, thnx..!


I don't think 0~60 numbers matter to many people.. most have learned on the streets, that claimed 0~60 is nearly meaningless. Just one piece of gravel, or a traction control event, or uneven pavement.. makes more of a difference than a claimed 0.5s..!

Again, it's ballpark anyways, but makes for great marketing, 5~60mph is much more telling...



I wonder how many people will play with their ratios.

 

[Dannyho]

yea I agree, in the real world 0-60 doesn't tell the whole picture. but marketing might have some issues if the PP ecoboost is slower to 60 (or 62.5) than the base ecoboost...

 

[mustangkeeper]

I agree...the PP eco better have a better 0-60 and we can be sure the
car magazines will point it out. 0 to 60 is still an important benchmark
since thats where the speeding tickets begin.

 

[foghat]

I agree...the PP eco better have a better 0-60 and we can be sure the
car magazines will point it out. 0 to 60 is still an important benchmark
since thats where the speeding tickets begin.

Sponsored