My EcoBoost story

[Juben]

High outlet temps are the mortal enemy of reliable FI engines and always will be!

As I've always said, heat management and good preventive maintenance is crucial to making solid, reliable power with any forced induction platform.

Sponsored

 

[ststang]

I think it would have been better for them to offer the higher end NA V8's as upper tier options, the 3.5L TT V6 in place of the V8 and the 2.3L as the base, doing away with the NA V6 and 5.0L V8 all together.

Wonder if this will be the next generation line up? V8 engines for speciality models like GT500, Mach 1, Bullits and Shelbys.

 

[Juben]

I was telling a guy at work the other night that Ford should dump the NA V6, place the 2.3 as the base engine, place the 2.7 as the mid-tier engine, and have the V8 as the top tier engine. With the 2.7 coming in the Fusion now, I can't imagine how they'd deny it to the Mustang unless they're afraid it'd eat into V8 sales.

 

[TheLion]

I was telling a guy at work the other night that Ford should dump the NA V6, place the 2.3 as the base engine, place the 2.7 as the mid-tier engine, and have the V8 as the top tier engine. With the 2.7 coming in the Fusion now, I can't imagine how they'd deny it to the Mustang unless they're afraid it'd eat into V8 sales.

That's exactly why they sandbagged the 2.3L. It's obviously capable of making quite a bit more power. While it can't quite match the NA 5.0 V8 without a few more involved changes (forged piston heads primarily), it can come darn close, within spitting distance. The whole thread on ex-Ford Global engineer who was involved with the 2.3 development spells it all out, backed up by the fact that the engine is so easy to squeeze very substantial gains in power out of.

Unlike NA's, which you spend a couple thousand on headers, intakes, exhaust only for a 20~30 HP gain or spend a good 5-10k to go FI (super charger or twin turbo kits for V8, coupled with a clutch upgrade), you can put down nearly 400HP for about $2100 or less on a EB...data says it all. If it's not a daily driver some have exceeded that by quite a bit using larger turbos and porting.

I highly doubt the Ford engineering team is "stupid" as some people purport and just "got all these things wrong". The logic behind that is mindbogglingly naive. I'm extremely suspect that Ford engineering can develop one of the more advanced and higher power density production turbo 4's on the market yet they couldn't design the down pipe, inter cooler or architect the PCM firmware to tap into what the forged rods, forged crank, TIVVT and twin scroll turbo technology can provide...intentional detuning is the only conclusion that makes sense and the project requirement of 125 hp differential is at the core of it.

I love the sound of NA V8's, but it's quite frustrating to have bought a product that has performance issues for the sake of selling some NA V8's that are outdated in terms of power density compared to FI 4's and 6's. I think the V8's only really make sense in the highest tier categories like the 5.2L Flat Plane crank or the super charged one used in the Cobras. In those product ties, you have to use a V8 to make those power levels with any reliability. But at the 350~400 hp range a well designed 4 or small 6 is more than capable when combing twin scroll oil cooled water jacked turbos, high flow exhaust, ind. variable valve timing, forged internals etc.

 

[navair133]

That's exactly why they sandbagged the 2.3L. It's obviously capable of making quite a bit more power. While it can't quite match the NA 5.0 V8 without a few more involved changes (forged piston heads primarily), it can come darn close, within spitting distance. The whole thread on ex-Ford Global engineer who was involved with the 2.3 development spells it all out, backed up by the fact that the engine is so easy to squeeze very substantial gains in power out of.

Unlike NA's, which you spend a couple thousand on headers, intakes, exhaust only for a 20~30 HP gain or spend a good 5-10k to go FI (super charger or twin turbo kits for V8, coupled with a clutch upgrade), you can put down nearly 400HP for about $2100 or less on a EB...data says it all. If it's not a daily driver some have exceeded that by quite a bit using larger turbos and porting.

I highly doubt the Ford engineering team is "stupid" as some people purport and just "got all these things wrong". The logic behind that is mindbogglingly naive. I'm extremely suspect that Ford engineering can develop one of the more advanced and higher power density production turbo 4's on the market yet they couldn't design the down pipe, inter cooler or architect the PCM firmware to tap into what the forged rods, forged crank, TIVVT and twin scroll turbo technology can provide...intentional detuning is the only conclusion that makes sense and the project requirement of 125 hp differential is at the core of it.

I love the sound of NA V8's, but it's quite frustrating to have bought a product that has performance issues for the sake of selling some NA V8's that are outdated in terms of power density compared to FI 4's and 6's. I think the V8's only really make sense in the highest tier categories like the 5.2L Flat Plane crank or the super charged one used in the Cobras. In those product ties, you have to use a V8 to make those power levels with any reliability. But at the 350~400 hp range a well designed 4 or small 6 is more than capable when combing twin scroll oil cooled water jacked turbos, high flow exhaust, ind. variable valve timing, forged internals etc.

I agree with your sentiments. The EB should have had a similar set up as the Focus RS and if Ford really wanted to it could have bumped up the V8 hp. Very frustrating and embarrassing that GM in the new Camaro focused on the power and performance much more so than Ford did in its Gen6 Mustang.

 

[SpeedLu]

Very frustrating and embarrassing that GM in the new Camaro focused on the power and performance much more so than Ford did in its Gen6 Mustang.

And look how successful GM's strategy has been. ;)

 

[jtmat]

My stock intercooler has been fine again this summer... no slowdowns whatsoever.

Far as the OP, dump that boostmax thing... it sucks. I agree with getting a tune and tires.

 

[navair133]

And look how successful GM's strategy has been. ;)

Yep, but I couldn't care less about sales numbers. I don't buy a car based on sales numbers. I enjoy performance vehicles and the stock Camaro is a better performance vehicle than the stock Mustang to my chagrin. :headbonk:

 

[PRG3k]

Which Camaro are you talking about?

 

[v8440]

Probably the ones you can't see out of. When they test new autopilot systems they should use camaros to avoid alarming the public. No one will be able to see that a human isn't driving.

 

[Glenn G]

I agree with your sentiments. The EB should have had a similar set up as the Focus RS and if Ford really wanted to it could have bumped up the V8 hp. Very frustrating and embarrassing that GM in the new Camaro focused on the power and performance much more so than Ford did in its Gen6 Mustang.

Stock. The EBM beats the V6 and turbo Camaro unless Motor trend puts much better tires on the Camaro turbo or hands the win to the V6 on sound alone. They won't even dare to put 93 in the EBM for testing. With nothing but a Cobb OTS tune, the EBM will destroy them mod for mod

 

[Juben]

Stock. The EBM beats the V6 and turbo Camaro unless Motor trend puts much better tires on the Camaro turbo or hands the win to the V6 on sound alone. They won't even dare to put 93 in the EBM for testing. With nothing but a Cobb OTS tune, the EBM will destroy them mod for mod

Preach! :clap2:

 

[navair133]

I love my modded mustang. But every car mag has rated the power and performance of the Camaro better than the Mustang. Motor Trend definitely tends to have a thing for GM, but Car and Driver and Automobile also rate the Camaro performance better. The SS is faster and handles better than the GT. The V6 is faster and handles better than the EB. Sounds better too, obviously. Also disappointed Ford talked about lowering weight, GM actually did it. Point is that Ford played us a little, that's all.

 

[TheLion]

I love my modded mustang. But every car mag has rated the power and performance of the Camaro better than the Mustang. Motor Trend definitely tends to have a thing for GM, but Car and Driver and Automobile also rate the Camaro performance better. The SS is faster and handles better than the GT. The V6 is faster and handles better than the EB. Sounds better too, obviously. Also disappointed Ford talked about lowering weight, GM actually did it. Point is that Ford played us a little, that's all.

Depends on weather you go with the V6 or V8 Camaro. I'd agree the V8 Camaro outclasses the V8 mustang as they come from the factory. But the story is opposite when you compare the mid tier:

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...st-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-4

Remember the Mustang EB is also running with a deficient IC, it can't make its rated HP after just 2 gears due to heat soak.

I think Ford's Coyote V8 is a bit outdated already. It had the highest power per liter when it arrived in 2011, but I don't think the power output has changed much since 2011. GM as been busy refining the LT1. I'm surprised Ford doesn't come put with a 5.4 or 5.8 version of the Coyote to replace the 5.0 as the base V8.

Remember also the Camaro V6 isn't going to get much faster without going to Froced Induction which is going to cost you a very sizeable chunk of cash. The EB stang can almost match the V8 Camaro on the 1/4 mile for about $2k worth of mods! That's impressive performance per dollar. If you throw enough money at it, you can make a Pinto run a 10 second 1/4 mile...but it comes down to how much the average person has / is willing to spend. Also the Mustang EB gets far better gas mileage than the Camaro V6 does as well.

If you want the best stock V8, buy GM. If you want the best stock mid tier, buy the Ford. If you want to mod the V8, buy whatever you like because at that point it doesn't matter (there are 5.0 TT kits running 10.2 quarter miles). Or if you want you could buy a true track car like the GT350.

Here's an example where the tables turn again with the Mustang beating the Camaro (Z28 vs GT350) for $10,000 less!: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford...amaro-z28-vs-2016-ford-shelby-gt350r-mustang/

So I don't think it's really fair to say the Camaro is a faster car than the Mustang. It depends on what tier and price category. They seem to trade blows and are fairly close. Also if you had a directly equal price, the extra cash on the Mustang in the cases where it is the looser would turn it into a winner.

Case in point, for $4500 price difference (Mustang is the cheaper one) you could make up for the deficiencies to match the Camaro via mods: http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ro-ss-vs-2015-ford-mustang-gt-comparison-test

If we really wanted to see which car was the best, we would have to have two at price points within 1k of each other, but that usually isn't the case as there's usually a big gap between the two on each of the tiers. I don't think you can truly say one is a better car than the other because if that were the case it would always better the other in each tier.

 

[jtmat]

Remember the Mustang EB is also running with a deficient IC, it can't make its rated HP after just 2 gears due to heat soak.

How do you define "2 gears"? Or in some posts, you have said 3 to 4 "pulls". How do you define those?

I'm wondering since I've ran multiple 0-60 in 90 degree weather and not had a slowdown... wondering if I'm not understanding how people define pulls.

Sponsored