2020 EcoBoost High Performance Package, 330 HP / 350 LB-FT, 0-60 mid 4's [Updated With Video]

[BmacIL]

If the drop-off at 5000 is an issue, just a tune fixes that.

It does? I don't remember seeing any dyno curves that significantly change where the curve drops. The tunes raise the whole curve up, but primarily add a big lump of torque down low (this is where LSPI can rear its ugly head). The drop-off point is mainly a function of the turbo map and efficiency. The itsy bitsy compressor on the base 2.3L is good for 2000-5000, but will rapidly lose efficiency above that. The new turbo on this package places less emphasis on low end, and more on mid and top. Should be more fun to drive.

Sponsored

 

[Z_Rocks]

So, what will the price difference between this model and Base GT be?

 

[Monopoly]

interesting choice of Tires going back to Pirella Pzero's (Corsa though)

 

[Blue Moon]

It does? I don't remember seeing any dyno curves that significantly change where the curve drops. The tunes raise the whole curve up, but primarily add a big lump of torque down low (this is where LSPI can rear its ugly head). The drop-off point is mainly a function of the turbo map and efficiency. The itsy bitsy compressor on the base 2.3L is good for 2000-5000, but will rapidly lose efficiency above that. The new turbo on this package places less emphasis on low end, and more on mid and top. Should be more fun to drive.

I haven't dyno'ed mine to look at the curves, but it definitely pulls a lot stronger in the top end than it did on the factory tune.

 

[Schwerin]

The Raptor is High Output, because it is not quicker than the regular 3,.5 EB in the F150, just higher output. Mustang can say High Performance because it actually is quicker and offers more performance than the standard 2.3EB in the Mustang.

HO has been used on both older 302's and even the Taurus while also meaning they are faster, my only guess is they used "performance" because it also handles better.

 

[Ronin5.0]

if only they had added an AWD option for us folks with winter driving... That's pretty good performance for a little motor.

 

[Bullitt]

This is one of those cases where the peak numbers don't tell the real story. With a turbo and intercooler upgrade out of the box, the performance will be a significant upgrade. For anyone who wants an autocross weapon, this with the Handling Package will be a very strong contender.

I agree, should be an awesome handler with the lighter weight. But if they're claiming it has the Focus RS components, it should be able to do the 350 hp regardless of the tune. And obviously Mountune and others have improved the curve on the RS while still maintaining the higher numbers, so why de-tune it? Out of respect for the RS? They shouldn't need to. The upgrades are great, but the marketing of the power figures, cosmetics and naming still make zero sense to me.

 

[boos550t]

Price will depend on if this will do well.

The 2.3 sounds so bad though compared to other i4 turbo motors.

The retro styling is weird. I figure a lot more people getting the 5.0 would want that more. I know a lot of old heads appreciate the 5.0 and retro stuff more than the kids that will buy the ecoboost.

 

[bomlodr]

The running gear is pretty solid, but the styling / naming convention is baffling. Heck, re-use the SVO name if you want to do a little call back to a performance 4 cylinder (an SVO badge would look slick on the back).

This is what I'm talkin' about. This new car has the same formula as the original and I'm hearing much of the same comparison points (complaints) between this one and the GT. Only difference today, I seriously doubt that this new model will cost nearly double that of a fully loaded GT like the 84-86 SVOs did. Slap a PP on, get rid of that back seat, throw in some gray Recaros, carpet, and put some flocking on that dashboard!

 

[Jarstang]

Added video:

 

[bomlodr]

The running gear is pretty solid, but the styling / naming convention is baffling. Heck, re-use the SVO name if you want to do a little call back to a performance 4 cylinder (an SVO badge would look slick on the back).

This is what I'm talkin' about. This new car has the same formula as the original and I'm hearing much of the same comparison points (complaints) between this one and the GT. Only difference today, I seriously doubt that this new model will cost nearly double that of a fully loaded GT like the 84-86 SVOs did. Slap a PP on, get rid of that back seat, throw in some gray Recaros, carpet, and put some flocking on that dashboard!

 

[LSchicago]

HO has been used on both older 302's and even the Taurus while also meaning they are faster, my only guess is they used "performance" because it also handles better.

I think it's more of a nod to the first generation of Mustangs. Remember the Hi Po 289's (K code)?

 

[Seatown Stang]

Im really surprised they didnt bring back the SVO moniker...think they missed the mark on that

 

[Schwerin]

Im really surprised they didnt bring back the SVO moniker...think they missed the mark on that

I'm wondering if they are holding off on that untill they used an EB motor that is closer to the GT's power like the SVO was. They have a 3.0TT making 400, they could likely tune that to 440-450 and put it in a Stang, that would be closer to the SVO brand.

 

[Cobra Jet]

Let’s throw this out there:

What would it take as far as actual money-out-of-pocket to upgrade an existing 2018/19 EB w/PP to the newly announced 2020 “Special” EB PP?

Because from what I’m seeing in the article, sans larger turbo - the 2018/19 EB w/PP comes with many of the Performance aspects already.

The upgrade from 2018/19 to 2020 aesthetics is a given:
Rear spoiler
Rear deck lid appliqué
gray mirror caps
2.3 specific badging
GT PP2 rims (despite size variance)
GT PP2 front splitter/belly pan
hood spear decals
CA Special upper/lower grilles

Sponsored