Sponsored

Preliminary numbers: 2015 Mustang 2.3L Ecoboost - 305-315 hp / 300-310 lb-ft

JonnyMustang

Mustang Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Threads
12
Messages
764
Reaction score
62
Location
NETSEO
Vehicle(s)
2013 Ford Flex EB
Definitely, and all the common folk who ask is it a v8?...... Makes you feel like crap even though your car will out accelerate most on the street.
Right? And when you say no, they reply, "Well why didn't you get the v8? It's not a real Mustang!"

Shows you how much they know about Mustang history. That's why I'm hoping this new design will lend itself better to smaller motors. Although it really did need to shrink in actual dimensions to do so...doesn't look like we're going to get that.
Sponsored

 

Gmxblazer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Threads
3
Messages
70
Reaction score
5
Right? And when you say no, they reply, "Well why didn't you get the v8? It's not a real Mustang!"

Shows you how much they know about Mustang history. That's why I'm hoping this new design will lend itself better to smaller motors. Although it really did need to shrink in actual dimensions to do so...doesn't look like we're going to get that.
Exactly, I agree. Smaller motors with better aftermarket gains for less. I'd still love a small displacement v8 with a turbo.
 

JonnyMustang

Mustang Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Threads
12
Messages
764
Reaction score
62
Location
NETSEO
Vehicle(s)
2013 Ford Flex EB
Exactly, I agree. Smaller motors with better aftermarket gains for less. I'd still love a small displacement v8 with a turbo.
The Mustang was meant to be a small sports car with small displacement motors...I think Shelby and the Camaro forced it into an arms race and so all people remember is the Boss 429s and the CJs.

I'd like to see a Mustang that was more of a competitor with the BRZ and Genesis rather than full on muscle cars like the Challenger and Camaro.
 

MadMoose

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Threads
0
Messages
147
Reaction score
8
Location
kingsville
Vehicle(s)
stuff
The question is at a mile and half above sea level daily. Would I prefer a tuned ecoboost mustang or tuned 5.0 ?
Tuned 5.0 IMO.

I outrun 300awhp STIs at Bandimere in my tuned 5.0. The turbo cars still lose power just not as much. plus the 4 cylinder sound is so tragically disappointing compared to a V8 that I would hands down take it over the 4 cylinder even if it was faster.
 

JonnyMustang

Mustang Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Threads
12
Messages
764
Reaction score
62
Location
NETSEO
Vehicle(s)
2013 Ford Flex EB
Tuned 5.0 IMO.

I outrun 300awhp STIs at Bandimere in my tuned 5.0. The turbo cars still lose power just not as much. plus the 4 cylinder sound is so tragically disappointing compared to a V8 that I would hands down take it over the 4 cylinder even if it was faster.
I love the v8 sound too. Nothing beats an old school, 2v, cammed motor for that.

This isn't too bad though (the 2.3 might even sound better), gives it the turbo airplane sound. ;)

 

Sponsored

JonnyMustang

Mustang Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Threads
12
Messages
764
Reaction score
62
Location
NETSEO
Vehicle(s)
2013 Ford Flex EB
Also interesting to note...looks like the EB was meant to be the base mustang but added too much cost:

The engine selection also didn't work out as planned. The intent was an EcoBoost turbocharged four-cylinder as the base engine and the V-8 as the up-level engine. But a less expensive V-6 was added to be the base, says chief engineer Dave Pericak. "We added the V-6 later in development, as a value item; Mustang's always had a value element," says Pericak.
Thus, the engine lineup will be:
• Base: 3.7-liter V-6, about 300 horsepower.
• Optional: 2.3-liter turbocharged EcoBoost four-cylinder. Ford says it'll have at least 305 hp and significantly more torque than the V-6.
• Top-end: 5-liter V-8, rated "more than 420 hp," he says.
 

DHG1078

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Threads
9
Messages
494
Reaction score
16
Location
So Cal
Vehicle(s)
2001 Mustang Bullitt, 1985 Mustang Hatch
the ecoboost only requires 87 octane. I would have thought it would need a higher octane. I guess that leaves lots of room for tuning with better gas.
 

likeaboss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Threads
42
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
983
Location
Baltimore, MD
Vehicle(s)
2020 Corvette Z51
the ecoboost only requires 87 octane. I would have thought it would need a higher octane. I guess that leaves lots of room for tuning with better gas.
However, with my Escape it has more power if you run 93.
 

DHG1078

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Threads
9
Messages
494
Reaction score
16
Location
So Cal
Vehicle(s)
2001 Mustang Bullitt, 1985 Mustang Hatch
However, with my Escape it has more power if you run 93.
man I wish I could get 93 here in Cali...

I think its a smart move to only require 87. requiring 91 in an "economy" version may push potential buyers away.
 

JonnyMustang

Mustang Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Threads
12
Messages
764
Reaction score
62
Location
NETSEO
Vehicle(s)
2013 Ford Flex EB
It seems like they begrudgingly added the v6 because of the bean counters. This is one step in enticing the non-v8 buyers away from the v6 and proving the accountants wrong. Huge tuning potential for gear heads but miserly for the average daily driver if you wanna leave it stock.
Sponsored

 
 




Top