2015 Mustang Horsepower / Torque Figures and Weight Released!

[ML]

You can lead a horse to gasoline...

The 2015 Mustang's official horsepower/torque figures have finally been released by Ford!

Has Ford released the fuel mileage for these engines? I'd like to see how thirsty 300 horses get when running four cylinders versus six. And even though I shouldn't care, I'd like to know if the V8 can still do 300 miles on a tank. It would be nice to get more... but 300 is good place to start.

Sponsored

 

[Tony Alonso]

Thanks, I learned something today: avoid the 2010 Mustang.

Really - they aren't that bad in the GT model

I have a feeling we won't have that same issue with the 2015.

Probably not, but if it happened, would you have regrets?

 

[xlover]

Really - they aren't that bad in the GT model



Probably not, but if it happened, would you have regrets?

I had a 2010, basically the new ecoboost outclasses that engine in everything but sound. It's gonna have similar hp and torque but with torque available over a much larger rpm range and significantly better mileage. Progress is wonderful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Alonso]

I had a 2010, basically the new ecoboost outclasses that engine in everything but sound. It's gonna have similar hp and torque but with torque available over a much larger rpm range and significantly better mileage. Progress is wonderful.

Not sure about the RPM range since we haven't seen the graphs yet and while I agree that progress is wonderful, that old baby still sounds good

 

[Pabo]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2015-f...-know-about-its-v-6-v-8-and-ecoboost-engines/

Just saw this on C&D:

In terms of twist, this four-banger churns up 320 lb-ft at 3000 rpm, 40 more—at 1000 rpm earlier—than the V-6. That torque stays rather constant all the way to the horsepower peak of 5500 rpm, where the 2.3 still makes 296 lb-ft. It’s the low-rpm torque that should ultimately make the EcoBoost the quicker of the two non-GT Mustangs.

 

[airjonny]

It should be interesting to see how the turbo responds to bolt ons.

 

[phil1336]

I had a 2010, basically the new ecoboost outclasses that engine in everything but sound. It's gonna have similar hp and torque but with torque available over a much larger rpm range and significantly better mileage. Progress is wonderful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Jury is still out on what you could consider "considerably better gas mileage" with the EB 2.3 I4 over the 3.7 V6. I think once you put the (pedal to the metal) on the Turbo-Charged 4 banger, the Fuel Economy will quickly drop and be more in line with the old 3.7 V6. Time will tell.

 

[xlover]

The Jury is still out on what you could consider "considerably better gas mileage" with the EB 2.3 I4 over the 3.7 V6. I think once you put the (pedal to the metal) on the Turbo-Charged 4 banger, the Fuel Economy will quickly drop and be more in line with the old 3.7 V6. Time will tell.

I was referring to the 2010 V8, 315 hp 325 lbft 24mpg highway
ecoboost 310 hp, 320 lbft, est 32-34mpg highway

the ecoboost torque curve will be much more like a V8 actually a bit better than a NA V8 and will dominate the 6 which has to get a bunch of revs to get any meaningful torque. obviously that's my opinion of meaningful based on what i have owned and look for in a vehicle

 

[DonLafond]

Probably not, but if it happened, would you have regrets?

No, I wouldn't have regrets because I can only get the 50th anniversary package on this model

 

[Tony Alonso]

No, I wouldn't have regrets because I can only get the 50th anniversary package on this model

And I likewise would not have regrets if the power went up because this car will be a daily driver and 435hp is a stout engine, and I wanted the model year of the car that recognizes the 50 years of Mustang

 

[Seabee1973]

And I likewise would not have regrets if the power went up because this car will be a daily driver and 435hp is a stout engine, and I wanted the model year of the car that recognizes the 50 years of Mustang

Same here.... Same reason why I got the Audi... was a special deal fact that it was almost exactly the same as the concept

 

[minjitta]

Yes, why in the world would anyone have gotten the impression that the '15 GT would outperform the Boss?

http://www.automotive.com/news/1312...ker-than-boss-302-laguna-seca-out-of-the-box/

According to Ford Mustang communications representative Brian Cotter, the new muscle car is being aimed at exceeding the lofty benchmarks set by the stripped-out, pared-down Boss 302 Laguna Seca, a model that doesn't even come with a back seat. Although Cotter wasn't at liberty to give us specific times and figures, he said that the car would sweep the Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca bends at a time that would come under its purpose-built predecessor's blistering 1:39.5 pace.

2014 Stingray lap 1:38:28 let's hope 15' Mustang GT lap around 1:38.5 which is only 1s better than the 14' BOSS

 

[Brent302]

2014 Stingray lap 1:38:28 let's hope 15' Mustang GT lap around 1:38.5 which is only 1s better than the 14' BOSS

1 second is an eternity...

 

[DivineStrike]

wouldn't it be great if the mustang beat the vette at it's own game? I honestly don't expect it but if the stingray only beat the boss by a little more than a second than one could have hopes the Mustang might just tie or beat the base stingray. Although something that i'm a little disappointed about is, they have only "consistently beat the Boss around the track". If it were a second or more, I would assume it would pretty much always beat a boss around the track.

 

[Fenderaddict2]

I was talking about the Torsen used in the '13-14 Track Pack cars as well as the Boss 302. There were a number of reported failures at the drag strip.

I seem to remember this was a posted concern that, like the kids game of Telephone, suddenly was "failures". I don't recall a "number" of failures at all.

Sponsored