22 GT and Mach down 10hp… Is this true?

[Ebm]

That being the case, I'd be entirely willing to accept the least powerful of the current F150 engine offerings. If I'm back into and still into running at HPDE events, it'd be a certainty that I'd take that engine over any of the EB offerings. Maybe even if all I'd be doing was street driving, because I'll always be a corner-carver with roots in smaller-displacement NA powerplants at heart.

Ford F-150 Engines:

3.3-Liter Ti-VCT V-6: 290 hp, 265 lb-ft

• 2.7-Liter EcoBoost V-6: 325 hp, 400 lb-ft
• 3.5-Liter EcoBoost V-6: 375 hp, 470 lb-ft
• High-Output 3.5-Liter EcoBoost V-6: 450 hp, 510 lb-ft

Norm

What if they could match everything great about a naturally aspirated vehicle in a turbocharged vehicle? They are super close. If tuned correctly and the right turbo size and type of turbo is selected, the power curve can be super close to linear just like a naturally aspirated vehicle.

Unfortunately, I believe we will see the demise of the naturally aspirated engine AND the manual gearbox in the Mustang within this decade. Ouchy!

https://www.mustang7g.com/forums/th...-model-year-hybrid-s650-comes-in-2025.156083/

At a recent dealer conference, Ford confirmed S650 was coming for the '23MY and will be a re-engineered version of the current architecture. A hybrid will come for the '25MY

They can call it whatever they want. I call it S550.5 as we won't see a true S650. The current S550 (or S550.5) will take a cue from Dodge's architectural playbook and prolong the current architecture to keep the Mustang alive a little longer before going kaput. Hey, at least the Mustang will hold on a bit longer than the Camaro.

Sponsored

 

[dsjones5]

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37936933/2022-ford-mustang-v-8-output/

 

[EFI]

Probably a more restrictive emissions system due to the ever increasing EPA regulations.

 

[5.2 L V8]

Wow. First we've seen a "decrease" in power since what...1974? Not good.

 

[WildHorse]

Exactly. The future is electric.

This is what we're doing now ? Let me rephrase: ICE vehicles will be manufactured for a long time to come.

 

[WildHorse]

Could be. The trouble is, we live in the present.

In in the present.. The MACH E GT could only muster a 12.5sec 1/4 mile ET. In my city of 800000, there's only 4 charging stations. One has 2, the others are all singles. And usually with a Nissan leaf sitting there for hours.

 

[OutWest]

Only if there was Internet in the early 1900s. I wonder what the horse owners and horse carriage businesses were saying about the motorized carriages

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Wow. First we've seen a "decrease" in power since what...1974? Not good.

no, there have been a few. like '93? and '04? right before major model changes.

 

[WildHorse]

no, there have been a few. like '93? and '04? right before major model changes.

This has nothing to do with that. It's tighter emissions. The new C8 vette faced the same, but managed to keep its previous horsepower ratings.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

This has nothing to do with that. It's tighter emissions. The new V8 vette faced the same, but managed to keep its previous horsepower ratings.

well I know, but I am saying that we have seen HP decreases since the 70s doldrums.

 

[schmeky]

Makes me want to go into my shop and hug my 2018.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Only if there was Internet in the early 1900s. I wonder what the horse owners and horse carriage businesses were saying about the motorized carriages

They were saying they're filthy, noisy and stinky. And they were right.

 

[Schwerin]

no, there have been a few. like '93? and '04? right before major model changes.

There was also a year that SAE changed how it did its ratings, that lead to many cars having a dip for a bit. That MAY have been 04 though I don't recall, but I feel like it was late 90's.

I know that in 03 and 04 the Mach1 rating went UP by 10HP but the engine itself didn't change at all.

 

[Rick#7]

Could be what was posted above. Remember in 1993 when the fox body was re-rated at 205hp and the 94 was rated at 215?
The 93s were no slower than the 89-92 cars and faster than the 94 cars. Just Ford playing games.

Actually what happened was the government mandated a change in how the HP was determined. There wasn't any mechanical change to cause the drop in advertised power, the engines themselves were the same as previous years, but now they had to pick sample engines off the assembly line to test, and average the numbers from all of them to get the HP number they were allowed to use for advertising purposes.

 

[Schwerin]

Actually what happened was the government mandated a change in how the HP was determined. There wasn't any mechanical change to cause the drop in advertised power, the engines themselves were the same as previous years, but now they had to pick sample engines off the assembly line to test, and average the numbers from all of them to get the HP number they were allowed to use for advertising purposes.

THATS what I'm thinking of in my post above. SAE J1349. If I remember some cars actually went UP in HP.

Sponsored