EB Isn't the Only One

[TheLion]

This is just an FYI type of post just to be clear and is open to discussion just for the heck of it. Many of us have complained about the top end feeling so anemic on the 2.3L EB's, which I agree it is...and about the crappy IC which tends to easily heat soak, which it does...yet the Camaro 2.0T shows a nearly identical power / torque curve shape (fast forward to 34 seconds):

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]nrUZbC_jujA[/MEDIA]"]

And as well so does the WRX. I think big difference between the 3 is that perhaps the mustang's two competitors have better IC's and weigh less, so this particular issue or "characteristic" seems to be more manifest in the Ecoboost mustangs. Compound a heavier car with a an overloaded IC and you have an anemic feeling power band.

We know they can be quick stock under the right conditions as there's a bunch of 13.6 and 13.7 quarter miles and that one ridiculous 13.2 on bone stock cars, but i'm betting those were on more ideal days where the IC was able to function more effectively in cooler weather. Once it saturates, you'll see things like "mustang ecoboosts getting slower" where it only manages a measly 14.5, which is quite unimpressive for a car touting 310 hp / 320 ft-lbs, even if it weights between 3532 (base model) and 3600 (upper trim models).

I'm wondering if that 13.2 is what the EB is capable of if it just had an upgraded FMIC and no other modifications. Anyone ever test a bone stock EB with just a FMIC upgrade alone?

Sponsored

 

[EnFOURcer]

I have driven the Camaro and can honestly say that it was a laggy PIG!
Top end was not bad at all but it takes forever to get there.

 

[TheLion]

I have driven the Camaro and can honestly say that it was a laggy PIG!
Top end was not bad at all but it takes forever to get there.

I don't know what it is with Ford, but it seems like GM ships their cars tuned hotter, but there's less left in them.

Take a look at the V8's for example (don't even both with the 2015 and older camaro V8's due to them being pigs):

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=427506

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16739

On stock cars the Camaro V8's are faster cars hands down, will also be that on the track. But for what ever reason it seems once you start to mod the cars, in the same categories all of the sudden the dynamic flips and mustangs become the much faster cars on average.

There is an 8 second V8 on the mustang leader board, a slew of 9's and 10's, the fastest Camaro V8 for 2016 is 10.6 with nitrous and DR's. I wonder if it's just because the Camaro's are newer or if it's because they simply come hotter from the factory?

I know statistically their quality isn't ranked nearly as high as Toyota, Ford and Honda which I think are presently the top 3. Maybe that's part of it...this is interesting, it's really interesting considering the 1.2L displacement advantage of the vett engine (literally it's a re-tuned vett LS engine in the 2016 camaro).

 

[KrisR]

I think the small stock turbo and crappy head design contribute more to the lack of top-end power than the lousy factory intercooler. Even the full-bolt-on big intercooler stock turbo EB cars have the problem, albeit less so.

 

[ElAviator72]

Try it again with the Ford ProCal tune applied...it fixes the crappy top end.

A bigger intercooler is just a bolt-on away (no tune even required for that!)

 

[Seceda91]

I don't know what it is with Ford, but it seems like GM ships their cars tuned hotter, but there's less left in them.

Take a look at the V8's for example (don't even both with the 2015 and older camaro V8's due to them being pigs):

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=427506

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16739

On stock cars the Camaro V8's are faster cars hands down, will also be that on the track. But for what ever reason it seems once you start to mod the cars, in the same categories all of the sudden the dynamic flips and mustangs become the much faster cars on average.

There is an 8 second V8 on the mustang leader board, a slew of 9's and 10's, the fastest Camaro V8 for 2016 is 10.6 with nitrous and DR's. I wonder if it's just because the Camaro's are newer or if it's because they simply come hotter from the factory?

I know statistically their quality isn't ranked nearly as high as Toyota, Ford and Honda which I think are presently the top 3. Maybe that's part of it...this is interesting, it's really interesting considering the 1.2L displacement advantage of the vett engine (literally it's a re-tuned vett LS engine in the 2016 camaro).

Good points.. the Camaro has 55ftlb more torque, 20 more hp and weighs 70-100 lbs lighter. Also the suspension is dialed on well. That's why there is a difference between the two from factory. Now time can only tell how the Camaro does with mods.. I know one thing, Mustang aftermarket is huuuuuuge and that plays a big role. I also feel that the coyote respond better with mods?

I don't care for the SS but I appreciate their performance.. I'll take a GT PP with power packs 3 and just call it the day.. best of both worlds with looks and power!

We have EB's hitting 9s!!! It may take 20 years for the 2.0T Camaro to run 10s

The V6 and 2.OT camaroon isn't all that impressive IMO

 

[Billy1]

I say the more the merrier. Competition will only make every company produce better products.

 

[apx632]

This is just an FYI type of post just to be clear and is open to discussion just for the heck of it. Many of us have complained about the top end feeling so anemic on the 2.3L EB's, which I agree it is...and about the crappy IC which tends to easily heat soak, which it does...yet the Camaro 2.0T shows a nearly identical power / torque curve shape (fast forward to 34 seconds):



And as well so does the WRX. I think big difference between the 3 is that perhaps the mustang's two competitors have better IC's and weigh less, so this particular issue or "characteristic" seems to be more manifest in the Ecoboost mustangs. Compound a heavier car with a an overloaded IC and you have an anemic feeling power band.

We know they can be quick stock under the right conditions as there's a bunch of 13.6 and 13.7 quarter miles and that one ridiculous 13.2 on bone stock cars, but i'm betting those were on more ideal days where the IC was able to function more effectively in cooler weather. Once it saturates, you'll see things like "mustang ecoboosts getting slower" where it only manages a measly 14.5, which is quite unimpressive for a car touting 310 hp / 320 ft-lbs, even if it weights between 3532 (base model) and 3600 (upper trim models).

I'm wondering if that 13.2 is what the EB is capable of if it just had an upgraded FMIC and no other modifications. Anyone ever test a bone stock EB with just a FMIC upgrade alone?

The base WRX heat soaks. The STI's have a better TMIC which can actually work even with a 20g cobb turbo upgrade makign around 400whp. But most still decide to at least upgrade to a better TMIC or FMIC at that point.
As far as times go. There's not a bunch of 13.6's that I've seen (mine being one of them). Mine was ran in VERY ideal conditions. If you look at the 13.2 car it had weight reduction done and likely KILLER conditions as well. I only had my car stock for about a month then it went cobb stage 1. And once i was able to monitor charge temps I can tell you even when it was 50 degrees out I could heat soak my car after 1 run.

 

[jtmat]

Try it again with the Ford ProCal tune applied...it fixes the crappy top end.

A bigger intercooler is just a bolt-on away (no tune even required for that!)

Funny enough, no intercooler required for that tune.

My intercooler must be special.... I have no issues with it.

Figure if I ever wanted to visit a track, I'd get an intercooler then...

 

[Jake]

This is just how small turbo power bands are though, no? Camaro, gti, wrx, even bmw I think has that peak and then a drop. Seems like manufacturers are building/tuning for quick response and low end push in lieu of the "laggy" curves of 90s turbo cars.

 

[Edkiefer]

This is just how small turbo power bands are though, no? Camaro, gti, wrx, even bmw I think has that peak and then a drop. Seems like manufacturers are building/tuning for quick response and low end push in lieu of the "laggy" curves of 90s turbo cars.

They have to cause most are using the turbo instead of cubic inches , so they need good low end or small engine displacement doesn't work.
There also fighting mpg to.

 

[PRG3k]

Fuel economy, taxes and tightening emission regulations around the world are driving the auto industry towards motors and powerbands like this.

The little Camaro def. has weight on its side. I wonder if GM makes an intercooler as crappy as Ford does. That would be an interesting thing to find out.

 

[jrock]

of course, you can convert the Camaro 2.0T to flex fuel with a tune for only 500 bucks.
http://www.rpm-motorsports.com/store/p133/2016-camaro-flex-fuel-conversion-kit-e85

 

[doulos4jc]

cpe intercooler plus cpe downpipe plus sct tune eliminated lack of top end power,,,pulls hard all the way to redline.

 

[TheLion]

There's no doubt that a good tune when combined with a FMIC keeps the top end strong all the way out, run after run. Here's a dyno of an otherwise stock 2016 EB, tune only (Livernois 93, but not my car, hoping to get mine dynoed in the new year when I"m not so busy):



But what is interesting is why so many reviews cite the mustang EB's as feeling sluggish or lethargic (at least stock) but don't criticize their competition for feeling like that when their power and torque curves are pretty much identical, unless of course the EB's are just pulling more timing comparatively which exaggerates that sensation.

The V6 Camaro is the faster car stock (as well as the WRX), but especially the Camaro V6 A8 putting down an impressive 13.5, but being an NA motor, without spending 5k~7k on just a turbo system, there's quite a bit less mod potential without dumping some serious coin into it (at which point you mine as well have bought the NA V8). We know a good tune only EB's can put down mid 12's, that's what, $500~$600? But yes, if your not going to tune / mod the car there are faster factory options (albeit more expensive too). I'd agree though that the mustang S550 is the better looking of all the above mentioned cars, it's just plain sexy!

Here's a question, has anyone been able to tune out the under steer with swaybars / springs? I have the Ford Performance X Street lowering springs, but stock base model sway bars and I still get a noticeable under steer mid corner. The question also becomes, if I eliminate or can eliminate the under steer, do I loose the "rotating" characteristic of the car when exiting corners, that I will say this thing just rockets on corner exit, combine that with PP brakes for a fast hot entry and I'm wondering if that was compromise that had to be made.

There are different situations in which mid corner is more important than entry and exit, such as wide sweeping turns on a large, high speed track, but on a tighter track with lots of sharp turns, like auto cross courses, I'm wondering if fast entry / exit are more important than mid corner.

Sponsored