Road & Track's first ride review

[mustang317]

2.3 Ecoboost “more than 305 hp, and more than 300 lb-ft of torque.”
I'm sorry, but those figures are not very mpressive by today's standard... I think my wife's 2012 Edge has close to that. Mustang may have shed some weight, but it's still a large car for a F/I 4 cylinder engine to power. 18PSI of boost isn't suppose to be a lot for a factory turbo engineered car, but how much more abuse do you think the engine can handle before it blows? I think we're gonna hear a lot of "blown 2.3L" from the boost geeks when the car comes out.

that's why im thinking about just a Premium GT , since the v6 doesn't have any select-able driving modes. im still not in favor of the ecoboost long term expectancy.

Sponsored

 

[likeaboss]

So far there has been three mediocre reviews from "test rides." It will be very interesting to see how the reviews change once people get behind the wheel.

I agree the test ride reviews have been poor. Ford marketing might want to rethink their strategy next time and wait until the press can actually drive the car. If I was in the market for an Ecoboost Stang my enthusiasm would be lower right now.

 

[Falc'man]

Even if you added exotic FPC engines to the mix their peak torque would be a crazy high RPM's anyway.

Correct. Coyote's applications are mass produced vehicles and I'm sure Ford is capable of challenging the exotics if they wished, shifting the peak efficiencies up a couple of thousand revs... The proof to back this claim is the Coyote itself being one of, if not the most efficient engine in mass produced applications.

 

[M.Senger]

We don't make good V8's here in Europe. I wanted to buy BMW E60 545i... that V8 have got problems with coolant leaks from the engine, you need to pull out whole engine from the car and it cost a lot to fix it. Audi S5 V8? Heads got clogged by dirt.

Comparing V8 from $30 000 Mustang to those in $300 000 Ferraris is just stupid. But kids on internet still do this 'cause driving cars in Gran Turismo doesn' cost much. But if you must to buy something in real life and pay all maintance costs then you know it's not all about BHP from 1L and other numbers.


As the Ride Report. I think that autocross track is too small to get high speeds - not enough room for full throttle, we need some report from race track.

 

[navair133]

In my opinion people should not get caught up in the passenger sense of speed comments we have heard relating to the Eco. It is pretty clear that the S550 is going to be the best handling Mustang ever. The Eco will be nimble. The PP will improve acceleration, handling and braking even more. Love the PP wheels on the Eco.

It will be fast enough. I cannot wait to get my DIB Eco-Boost Perf Pack-but will have to. :headbonk:

 

[Topnotch]

Part 2

http://www.roadandtrack.com/feature...rful-will-the-ford-mustang-ecoboost-really-be

It’s been more than five months since Ford revealed the 2015 Mustang. Since then, Ford has discussed things like the convertible top, aerodynamic development, launch control, and line lock, but they’ve remained coy about the technical specs everyone wants, including weight and engine output.

In a ride-along last week, we got our first taste of what to expect when the turbocharged, four-cylinder Mustang EcoBoost arrives this fall, but once again, Ford refused to share hard numbers. So let’s review what we DO know about the 2.3-liter EcoBoost and suss out an educated prediction.

The 2015 Mustang retains the base 3.7-liter V6 from the previous generation to provide a price leader for marketing purposes and rental fleets. At the opposite end of the scale, the 5.0-liter, V8-powered GT is the top performance option until the SVT-developed Shelby GT350 arrives—don’t bet against an L.A. Auto Show debut in November. The turbo 2.3 should account for the bulk of Mustang sales now that the European market is in play.

Why bother with a turbo four, anyway?

The answer to that question is simple: fuel economy. When it comes to bang for the buck, the current 305-hp V6 is pretty well regarded with a base sticker of just $23,335 before rebates. Its 31-mpg EPA highway rating currently tops the segment, too, but that won’t be enough going forward.

The new Mustang will, at last, be sold globally. In many of those markets, gasoline is much more expensive than it is in the United States. The American pony car buyer may not shop with fuel economy front-of-mind, but customers in international markets do. As it happens, so do the feds.

Here at home, automakers are required to achieve a fleet average fuel economy rating of 54.5 mpg (roughly 45 mpg combined on the window sticker) by 2025. The Mustang is part of that equation for Ford, and it must contribute to the automaker’s EPA bottom line or go away. After getting smacked down by the EPA last year for overestimating the C-MAX hybrid’s fuel economy, Ford stopped issuing early mileage projections. What the company did say back in December is that it expects the Mustang to be class-leading with the EcoBoost four.

We figure Ford aims for a highway number in the 33- to 34-mpg range.

But what about the power output?

Prospective buyers in this class seek the combination of performance and affordability that made the Mustang an instant hit 50 years ago. Sandwiched in price between the V6 and V8, the EcoBoost must deliver performance commensurate to its spot in the pecking order. Logically, we’d expect the mid-range Mustang engine to crank out somewhere around 350 hp and 350 lb-ft of torque, nicely splitting the difference between the V6 and the 420-plus-hp V8. In fact, sources with knowledge of the 2015 Mustang program have told us that’s exactly what the original target was.

Here’s the catch: Those performance numbers coincided with a targeted weight reduction of several hundred pounds.The preliminary specs released in December only placed the turbo four at “more than 305 hp” and “more than 300 lb-ft.” That’s the same as Ford saying, “It’ll be more powerful than the V6,” and not much else.

Unlike the dramatically lighter aluminum-bodied F-150 pickup, Ford hasn’t said a peep about the 2015 Mustang’s mass, so we assume that weight savings, if any, are minimal. Based on how the car we rode in last week felt from the passenger seat, and rumblings we’re hearing from those in the know, the final turbo numbers will land at somewhere around 310–320 hp with a similar torque figure. That would give The Mustang EcoBoost a 25- to 35-hp advantage over the transverse-mounted version of the same engine in the Lincoln MKC and a smaller lead over the 3.7-liter V6. The big advantage the turbo will have over the base V6 is a torque curve that hits its peak around 1500–1700 rpm, staying there to around 5000 rpm.

We also have little doubt that the EcoBoost engine can produce significantly more power and torque reliably. Ford may keep the wick dialed back in stock trim, but the big Mustang tuners will quickly unleash the power the 2.3 turbo is really capable of. With meaty torque and quicker throttle response thanks to the new twin-scroll turbo, the 2.3 EcoBoost should easily outperform the 3.7 V6, just not by as much as we’d initially hoped.

Pounds vs. HP

We’re speculating here, but there’s another clue in the specs released back in December that hints at fuel economy being the limiting factor in how much the engineers could turn up the wick on the turbo. On the line that lists fuel capacity, the V6 and V8 are both listed at the same 16 gallons as the outgoing 2014 Mustang. The EcoBoost, on the other hand, only gets 15.5 gallons.

At approximately 6.3 lbs per US gallon of gasoline, this is a common trick that automakers play with cars that are set up to maximize fuel efficiency. The weights used to set up the tests are based on all fluids being full, including fuel. When a car is close to the limit for a test weight class, little tricks like this can make the difference between coming out with 33 or 34 mpg.

Had Ford been able to slash the Mustang’s weight as hoped, a 350-hp turbo four might have made the grade with the EPA. If we assume the 2015 Mustang EcoBoost tips the scales somewhere near the 3500 lbs of the similarly-sized 2014 V6 coupe, the lower output was probably necessary to meet the mileage target. Remember, it’s a lot cheaper to dial back the powerplant than to shave weight. Ultimately, this will make no difference in how much customers actually spend on gas, but it can mean millions of dollars to an automaker. Following the C-MAX fiasco and the even broader adjustments at Hyundai and Kia, engineers are under tremendous pressure to hit the mileage targets assigned to every model and make sure those numbers actually stick.

With the new Mustang going on sale in early fall, we expect to finally get hard numbers by mid-summer.

 

[ort895]

http://www.roadandtrack.com/feature...rful-will-the-ford-mustang-ecoboost-really-be

Interesting read, thanks for sharing.:ford:

 

[5.0GT]

Weight will be the key to the 2.3L....if it doesnt shed much It will be a huge fail because it has potential.

 

[JoeDogInKC]

hehe, I was just about to post this. Nice job beating me to it Topnotch!

 

[86GT]

2.3 Ecoboost “more than 305 hp, and more than 300 lb-ft of torque.”
I'm sorry, but those figures are not very mpressive by today's standard... I think my wife's 2012 Edge has close to that. Mustang may have shed some weight, but it's still a large car for a F/I 4 cylinder engine to power. 18PSI of boost isn't suppose to be a lot for a factory turbo engineered car, but how much more abuse do you think the engine can handle before it blows? I think we're gonna hear a lot of "blown 2.3L" from the boost geeks when the car comes out.

sigh

What part of "more than" do you not understand? Go look at any other turbocharged 4 cylinder right now. The only one on the market with more than 305 horsepower is Mercedes. "More than" could mean 310 or 330 but either way it's impressive for what was originally going to be the base motor.

I also don't understand why you think the motors are going to blow up? It's a completely forged bottom end. You can probably push 30psi through that bottom end and be fine.

 

[Wildcat]

330-350 hp would be fantastic.

As long as it's a moderate upgrade in performance times over my 3V.

 

[Taneras]

Though the auto trans remains a conventional six-speed unit carried over from the previous generation, it now gains steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters as well as a tidy throttle blip for all downchanges.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but...

What exactly is this, and what's its advantage?

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

Ultimately, this will make no difference in how much customers actually spend on gas, but it can mean millions of dollars to an automaker. Following the C-MAX fiasco and the even broader adjustments at Hyundai and Kia, engineers are under tremendous pressure to hit the mileage targets assigned to every model and make sure those numbers actually stick.

With the new Mustang going on sale in early fall, we expect to finally get hard numbers by mid-summer.

WHAT THE F*&K! :hitcomputer:

 

[Trackaholic]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but...

What exactly is this, and what's its advantage?

When a transmission shifts (and the vehicle speed is smoothly changing - which is always the goal in order to keep the car settled), the engine speed must suddenly adjust based on the new transmission ratio.

With upshifts, the new engine speed will be lower, so the naturally dropping RPMs (when you lift off the throttle to shift) tend to make upshifts relatively smooth.

With downshifts the engine speed must increase, so a savvy manual transmission driver will blip the throttle so that the engine speed is brought to where it needs to be for a smooth engagement. This way, when you let out the clutch, the engine will already be at the correct speed and there won't be any shock to the drivetrain. If the engine is at the wrong speed, the tires, geartrain and clutch will be forced to accelerate the engine to the correct speed, which can unbalance the car and which puts extra load on those components. Because the automatic always knows the which gear is engaged, it should be a "simple" programming excercise to allow the engiene management software to automatically blip the throttle to bring the engine to the appropriate speed. It reduces wear, makes the car smoother to drive, and sounds good, too.

This can be done in a manual transmission as well if the company installs sensors to detect which gear the car is in. Those sensors aren't needed (or are already present) in a automatic, because the computer is controlling the transmission anyway, and therefore always knows which gear the car is in. For the Mustang, the feature is only for the automatic.

-T

 

[Trackaholic]

WHAT THE F*&K! :hitcomputer:

I hope Ford releases info closer to when orders can be placed (TOMORROW?), rather than when cars are actually arriving in show rooms.

-T

Sponsored