Hack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2014
- Threads
- 86
- Messages
- 12,801
- Reaction score
- 8,209
- Location
- Minneapolis
- Vehicle(s)
- Mustang, Challenger
No one is pretty black and white.I guess we do.
I'm thinking of economical in a broad sense as in no one calling 22-25 mpg "economical." You are thinking in a comparative sense as it contrasts with the gas guzzling potential of the same engine making big power.
Maybe you think ECO means the car has to be compared to a Prius and be better. That seems so far out to be just ridiculous to me. I would compare to another vehicle making comparable power. Oh of course if Ford does the TT Coyote, there's the potential of almost zero cars making comparable power. Only a few exotics will be in the neighborhood.
Yup. On both points.It's all good. I think there is some room for interpretation until Ford does something official. Everyone has a different perspective of looking at the same thing and usually, multiple facets of one idea can be explored, credited, discredited, validated, etc. during discussions like these. That's the beauty of forums.
But at least we can agree that an FI V8 with "beastly" power is a proper fit for the GT500.

I'm not convinced at all by your argument. There are quotes around it, which means Hot Rod is trying to repeat what he said verbatim. Also, he said "the small EcoBoost". There's no room for a comma in that phrase, so a comma would be misplaced if added. There would have to be actual changing or rearranging of words in order to change the meaning.Well, it really depends, and could totally hinge on a single comma misplaced.
There is small ecoboost (meaning there is in fact a larger one) and there is small, ecoboost (meaning its not a large engine, but eco boost. We shall wait and see :shrug:
I agree with you we have to wait and see, though. Like I said before, he could have just miss-stated what he was trying to say. Or Hot Rod put quotes around it but didn't get the words right.
Sponsored
Last edited: