Take it for what it's worth....

[Darrinm03]

So today we had a small "Spec Ops Special Look" on base where I'm stationed with Ford and their new F150. I didn't even know about this, and possibly over looked the email saying they were gonna be on base showing their new truck. They had a short intro talking about all the new features of the truck and what not and opened the floor for questions. About 17 or so questions later about the mustang (which started to aggravate whoever was talking) finally got him to state this......"we aren't here to talk about the mustang, and I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm about its release, so I will give everyone this tidbit of info so we can move on about this F150...when the topic of horsepower came about in the design of the new mustang, Fords goal was to reach 315HP in the V6 model, and they definately achieved their goals. The EcoBoost is the next step up and Ford wanted it to out do the V6 Camaro in HP, so they set their goals for the EcoBoost at 323HP and they definately achieved their goals. And finally the GT....the goal from the start was for it to be competitive with the existing Boss 302, so they set their goals at right around 437HP and they definately achieved their goals. Again, I don't know how reliable this information is, but that's what was said from the leading Ford rep. But since he is a rep for the F150 and not the Mustang, I don't know if he was just saying this to shut everyone up? So, what do y'all think? Sound legit? And how do those numbers sound to y'all?

Sponsored

 

[MYs197]

Interesting info man thanks for sharing! My thinking is that is pretty specific info for it to be just a rep who wanted to shut everyone up and it would also be pretty bad form to make stuff up. I hope the info is true, I think 325hp for the I4 and 440hp for the GT is about as good as we should expect.

 

[chopsui]

I think 323 and 437 are really odd numbers, especially as goals. Also, I believe Ford is already on record as saying that the V6 is unchanged.

 

[Darrinm03]

I think 323 and 437 are really odd numbers, especially as goals. Also, I believe Ford is already on record as saying that the V6 is unchanged.

Right, my thinking is that Ford had originally planned for the v6 model to rival the V6 Camaro in performance, but at some point along the way it was decided the EcoBoost was going to be the main contender. And correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the development of this mustang started in like 2009 or something? They seem like odd numbers because they aren't your typical 405, 410, 415, 420, etc. I guess Ford set a benchmark when they began this mustang and chose those ballpark figures for whatever reason. I will most likely be in the market for the ecoboost so I was hoping for like 350 or so, so I guess I'm a little disappointed, but I knew those probably weren't realistic numbers to begin with

 

[Rampant]

I think 323 and 437 are really odd numbers, especially as goals. Also, I believe Ford is already on record as saying that the V6 is unchanged.

The Camaro V6 is 323hp, so that is where that number came from.
Not sure why 437, as the Boss was 444, but still close enough.

Regardless, those numbers seem to make sense to me since he left it open for the numbers to be even higher than their targets

320, 330+, 440 seem like reasonable figures to me. And, to be perfectly honest 330 for the turbo 4 is a bit higher than I was expecting. The weight will be the interesting thing for me.

Regardless, it is pretty amazing a turbo 4 has more horsepower than a SN95 Cobra and a '10 GT.

 

[eric n]

While I agree that 330 seems high for a turbo 4, it has been widely reported that the 4 would be a step up from the 6 so 300+ is kind of mandatory..

The question I wonder about is how horrible is the real world mpg going to be on the 4. I know that I would spool up those turbos every time I got near the car. Turbos theoretically have great milage potential, but the urge to build revs & boost are a hard thing to resist.

 

[13GTCSMustang]

I have to agree. Anytime you keep your right foot on the floor of any turbo charged engine, you will see poor mpg numbers. I owned a 1988 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. Average driving I would see 24 mpg and on the highway on a long trip, I'd see 28. Let me plant my right foot and those numbers would drop to around 17. As for the HP numbers, 330 is very impressive. My Turbo Coupe only had 200 and it was pretty quick for the era. Dang I miss that car!!!

 

[Darrinm03]

I ran into the same issue with my SRT-4. But If the v6 is at 305, and they make the ecoboost only 310-315, is ten horsepower going to justify spending more money on a smaller engine with the potential for worse gas mileage? I would want a significant power difference to justify spending more money, when I could just buy a v6, have a better exhaust note and engine sound, add a few mods and come out cheaper than the I4.

 

[sponkey21]

In America it doesn't make as much sense as it does in Europe, where several countries charge large taxes based on displacement, CO2 emissions, and I think even cylinder count, but not sure on the last one. In America it would just be for the weight savings, potential for better mileage, appeasing hippies, and I guess to some there is a "coolness" factor to owning a turbo

 

[Cosmos]

Re: choosing the I4 vs the V6, IMO the jury is still out on the question of future performance and/or maintenance issues with carbon buildup on intake valves of GDI engines. With all the debate, catch can installs, etc., I'm still waiting for manufacturers to candidly acknowledge the issue and specifically state for public consumption that mitigation is available or engineered into the engine.

 

[MadMoose]

In America it doesn't make as much sense as it does in Europe, where several countries charge large taxes based on displacement, CO2 emissions, and I think even cylinder count, but not sure on the last one. In America it would just be for the weight savings, potential for better mileage, appeasing hippies, and I guess to some there is a "coolness" factor to owning a turbo

Also once you start modifying the turbo 4 should make absurdly more power than the V6 for not much money

 

[Bullitt3980]

I think most V6 orders are going to be for fleet sales and price point sales--has it been known if there is a track pack for the V6? If not then anyone who is more than a casual Mustang owner will want the turbo 4 or the GT.

 

[chopsui]

I think most V6 orders are going to be for fleet sales and price point sales

Exactly. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that there will be no performance pack for the V6. I think that all of the official Ford materials only mention the EB4 and GT in relation to the PP.

Ford has stated that the original intention was to discontinue the V6 all-together but they decided late in the game to keep it for the US market so that they could meet their lowest price targets. This is why there was no work done on the engine and why I don't believe there will be any HP increase contrary to the OP.

 

[Darrinm03]

I don't know about the v6 hp either. I wasn't for sure in the first place about the current v6 HP I just knew it was just as much or more than my 2008 (when it was stock).but I didn't pay any mind to what he was saying about the V6 as I have absolutely no interest in that model. It was hard enough to remember enough to paraphrase what he said and remember the other numbers, so I could be mistaken on the V6 numbers, but I'm 100% on the others for sure, by that I mean 100% that's what he said, not those are 100% correct spot on power numbers

 

[minicobra]

...when the topic of horsepower came about in the design of the new mustang, Fords goal was to reach 315HP in the V6 model, and they definately achieved their goals. The EcoBoost is the next step up and Ford wanted it to out do the V6 Camaro in HP, so they set their goals for the EcoBoost at 323HP and they definately achieved their goals. And finally the GT....the goal from the start was for it to be competitive with the existing Boss 302, so they set their goals at right around 437HP and they definately achieved their goals.

Yes, I believe these numbers to be accurate, with the exception of the V6, I believe that will be left alone for the lower price points and rental fleet sales.

These numbers are exactly (give or take a couple of ponies) of what I was expecting for the 2015 model year run. This will also give them a little room to grow with the 2-3 year refresh and to counteract whatever the Chevy folks throw at them in 2016.

Now, can we get another truck rep to talk about the Mustang weight? ;)

Sponsored