2.3EB Vs 2.7 Vs 3.5

[Trackaholic]

OK, I'm editing my original post heavily, to try and get my point across better.

IMO, the premise of the article does not make complete sense. My understanding of their base argument is that the power gap between the EB 2.3 and the V8 will be too large and therefore a mid-range engine is required. This mid-range engine could be the EB 3.5 or the upcoming EB 2.7

The problem with the initial statement is that the power gap that will likely exist is essentially the same power gap that has existed since the 3.7 V6 and 5.0 V8 were introduced several years ago. The EB3.5 has been available that entire time as well, yet Ford has not seen the need to add it to the lineup. I don't see what is different about the 2015 that would change things, at least with respect to filling a gap in the power offerings.

Furthermore, in the F150 application (the only other case where both the 5.0 and EB 3.5 are offered) the EB 3.5 is the higher-end offering, and I don't see Ford undermining their years of promotion to that effect by making the V8 the higher end offering in the Mustang. So for me the EB 3.5 is not in the picture, at least not yet.

If the Ford really does need to reduce the adoption of the V8 in order to promote fuel economy, I could eventually see the following:
EB 2.3 - 320 HP (base model)
EB 3.5 - 450 HP (GT)
Hi-Output Normally Aspirated V8 - 480 HP (SVT version)

I think this scenario would need to wait for a few years, until people became accustomed to a turbo Mustang and a GT without a V8. The F150 has shown that people are willing to go with a turbo-6 in areas where a V8 traditionally dominated, so it wouldn't surprise me to see something like that eventually. I personally would rather have the V8.

-T

Sponsored

 

[valentinoamoro]

I guess these threads might be merged??

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/2-3eb-vs-2224.html

Agreed. I was unaware of the FB article and was speculating about the same thing.

 

[JoeDogInKC]

All very plausible. My only caveat being we've traditionally only had 2 models (excluding SEs like the Boss/GT500) the "entry level" (ie V6) and GT (V8), and many see the V6 as a late re-entry for S550 to perhaps appease the rental/fleet market.

How about this for a theory?

The 3.5 Ecoboost could be what powers the rumoured Mach1. Make it high on luxury features and it'll sit nicely in the middle of the range, above the 2.3 Ecoboost, but below the 5.0 GT, both in terms of BHP & $$

I really hope there will always be a V8 in a Mustang, but we have wonder what happens to Coyote in the longer term. I suspect it'll be with us for the duration of the S550 model run, but what then? Even the Germans are downsizing their V8s and adding turbos. How about a 4.5 Twin Turbo V8 for the GT, producing north of 475bhp. Possible?

By then (7-8 years down the road), turbocharged Mustangs will be the norm, especially if the 3.5 Ecoboost makes it into the car.

This would possibly mean the number of GTs sold reduces and the V8 Mustang becomes a niche within a niche, if you like. This would appease the V8 fans, but also aid Ford achieving the tough CAFE targets.

All good food for thought

I personally couldn't see the EB V6 in the Mach 1 as a distinction unless it was also more powerful than a standard GT. As a previous Mach 1 owner, it was a better performing, higher power car than the GT, not a car high on luxury features. My 2004 was ~315hp compared to the GT's 260hp.

I say, just make a twin-scroll 5.0L V8 and call it a day.

 

[JoeDogInKC]

It was their already existing 3.5 Ecoboost engine, not the 3.7.





I believe it was ALMS.

Yes, you are correct. That was my bad. I watched the 12-hours of Sebring event and I think they have made a mistake at some point during the broadcast and said it was 3.7L. I dug up some more information on it last night, actually, and found that it set the course record for speed (222.971 MPH) as well as quickest standing start to both 10 kilometers and 10 miles at Daytona. That is a seriously impressive 3.5L! I wish I could find HP/TQ numbers on it.

 

[Grimace427]

IMO, the premise of the article does not make complete sense. My understanding of their base argument is that the power gap between the EB 2.3 and the V8 will be too large and therefore a mid-range engine is required. This mid-range engine could be the EB 3.5 or the upcoming EB 2.7

The problem with the initial statement is that the power gap that will likely exist is essentially the same power gap that has existed since the 3.7 V6 and 5.0 V8 were introduced several years ago. The EB3.5 has been available that entire time as well, yet Ford has not seen the need to add it to the lineup. I don't see what is different about the 2015 that would change things, at least with respect to filling a gap in the power offerings.



I think this scenario would need to wait for a few years, until people became accustomed to a turbo Mustang and a GT without a V8. The F150 has shown that people are willing to go with a turbo-6 in areas where a V8 traditionally dominated, so it wouldn't surprise me to see something like that eventually. I personally would rather have the V8.

-T

I agree with your first two points in that Ford doesn't really need to fill the perceived HP gap in order to sell cars. The most important numbers from the business standpoint is price, not horsepower.

Regarding your idea on a GT without a V8, I don't think we are anywhere near that point yet. There are so many expensive cars on the market that are selling very well(BMW 3-series, etc) that even the higher price and fuel consumption of the V8 models will still be viable and definitely desireable. Ford has so many great models that would take their TT V6 engines and become incredible performers(Fusion would be awesome) and really step on the toes of higher-end luxury marques like BMW and Cadillac. For the Mustang I don't think it's necessary especially at the low numbers it sells at.

I personally couldn't see the EB V6 in the Mach 1 as a distinction unless it was also more powerful than a standard GT. As a previous Mach 1 owner, it was a better performing, higher power car than the GT, not a car high on luxury features. My 2004 was ~315hp compared to the GT's 260hp.

I agree, the Mach 1 nameplate is pretty definitive in it's aspirations within the Mustang lineup in regards to performance and pricing. Ford would likely make a slightly more performance-oriented GT and tweak it's look and slap the badge on it rather than make a completely new drivetrain. Having said that I keep hearing people speculating on the Mach 1 return but haven't seen anything to suggest the idea came from Ford at all.

 

[Sterling Archer]

I vote none of the above. One of the F150 launch engineers told me the '16 Raptor is scheduled to get a new monstrous ecoboost. You shouldn't have much difficulty guessing what it is.

As usual, y'all didn't nothin from me

 

[JoeDogInKC]

Well, guys, I was asked for my perspective on the matter and I wrote a piece on it too.

http://www.torquenews.com/1/could-we-boost-mustang-even-more

Give it a read and let me know what you think!

 

[TampaBear67]

There is No Way Ford would Position a Mach-1 below a GT.

 

[Dub347sbf]

I vote none of the above. One of the F150 launch engineers told me the '16 Raptor is scheduled to get a new monstrous ecoboost. You shouldn't have much difficulty guessing what it is.

As usual, y'all didn't nothin from me

5.0 ecoboost? Oh please be true

 

[908ssp]

I would have ordered a Eco boost V6 if it was available and only slightly more expensive than the GT. My friends F150 Eco boost makes nearly 500 foot pounds of torque.

 

[crysalis_01]

I would have ordered a Eco boost V6 if it was available and only slightly more expensive than the GT. My friends F150 Eco boost makes nearly 500 foot pounds of torque.

They all will now. The retuned 3.5 in the facelifted Navigator now produces 385/460. I'd expect this output in all future 3.5's in "truck duty". This is being done to better align it with GM's 6.2L.

 

[JoeDogInKC]

There is No Way Ford would Position a Mach-1 below a GT.

100% agreed, but then you probably already saw my post agreeing with you.

 

[w3rkn]

2.3 EB
2.7 EB
5.0
3.5 EB

That^ will be the pecking order. The 3.5 will be featured in a SVT model.

 

[Sterling Archer]

5.0 ecoboost? Oh please be true

I cannot comment on specifics.

But in the words of Hellsing Ultimate:
"IT'S ZE SEQUAL YOU'VE ALL BEEN VAITING FOR!"

 

[JoeDogInKC]

I cannot comment on specifics.

But in the words of Hellsing Ultimate:
"IT'S ZE SEQUAL YOU'VE ALL BEEN VAITING FOR!"

DROOL!

Sponsored