Which engine for 2015 Mustang?

[Herr_Poopschitz]

You missed the point... sure anything is possible, but that's not the mission of this engine. It's mission is to support the CAFE average. That means it won't get 350 HP.

You missed your course in logic. Your premise is flawed, which means your conclusion is very likely incorrect.

If it's sole mission was CAFE, why turbo it? A higher compression na 4 cylinder would be more economical, both in maufacturing as well as for the consumer at the pumps. The fact it will not be built like this and will instead have a turbo w/ slightly less compression means it is being built both for economy AND power...ergo 'eco-boost' (jeez, do I really have to explain it?). Based on this, it is actually more likely than not that we'll see a respectable hp #.

Class dismissed.

Sponsored

 

[gojensen]

Or it's here for the European market (since it initially was rumoured not to be launched in the US) where we have way more stupid road taxes based on cylinder, volume and... hp's. I4, 2.3 and low HP means a MUCH cheaper/more affordable car than the V6/V8 would land at...

I *want* a V8, but at the prices they'll probably land at I might as well get a smaller Aston.

 

[stable68]

Im dreaming but id love ro see a 600 hp NA Boss 429

 

[lil=john]

I hope ford brings out a big N/A motor to compete with. I would love to see a short deck 6.2 version in 5.8 liter..Ala 351 Mach 1??..

 

[S550Boss]

You missed your course in logic. Your premise is flawed, which means your conclusion is very likely incorrect.

If it's sole mission was CAFE, why turbo it?
Class dismissed.

OMG. Totally wrong... you've missed everything that Ford and most of the rest of the industry has done in recent years with small displacement turbocharged engines. Failed - dismissed from class.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

OMG. Totally wrong... you've missed everything that Ford and most of the rest of the industry has done in recent years with small displacement turbocharged engines.

I love it when on forums an individual posts a response that disagrees w/ my viewpoint, yet provides incorrect information or illogical reasoning to come to incorrect conclusions. Better yet, disagreeing w/ me and offering nothing quantitative in defense, as above.

Failed - dismissed from class.

Wow, do you always plagiarize or do you have any thoughts of your own?

Maybe you should concentrate a bit on the technology available to understand what the industry is doing, instead of marketing hype aimed at soccer moms.

Again I ask, if it's sole mission were CAFE, why turbo it? There are more effective and cheaper ways to produce something solely for CAFE. So...again, just in case you forgot...WHY TURBO IT?

 

[Stevefreestyle]

I love it when on forums an individual posts a response that disagrees w/ my viewpoint, yet provides incorrect information or illogical reasoning to come to incorrect conclusions. Better yet, disagreeing w/ me and offering nothing quantitative in defense, as above.


Wow, do you always plagiarize or do you have any thoughts of your own?


Again I ask, if it's sole mission were CAFE, why turbo it? There are more effective and cheaper ways to produce something solely for CAFE. So...again, just in case you forgot...WHY TURBO IT?

Well said !! Someone who actuslly appreciates the value of Logical Reasoning and Falsly predicated conclusions (ie false and unsubstantiated assumptions) !!! A High Distinction to you !!

 

[Norm Peterson]

Don't forget that no matter what path you take to satisfy CAFE, you still have to make the car commercially attractive enough to sell in the anticipated numbers. Particularly for cars with any sense of 'sport' about them, there has to be a semblance of acceptable acceleration. So if you go small-displacement for reasons of reduced internal friction and lower pumping losses, you're much more likely to need some means of providing more output than you can get from a small displacement NA engine. No, this is not for a car built purely for CAFE only. Nor are most cars.

A small-displacement turbo engine can still be top-dog, even mpg-wise. As an example, the current Dodge Dart when equipped with the 160HP 1.4L turbo engine gets an EPA estimated 39 mpg highway. Its 160HP 2.0L normally aspirated counterpart only gets 36 (IIRC, the city mpgs are the same). The turbo 1.4 has significantly greater torque than the NA 2.0 (184 vs 148).
.
http://www.dodge.com/en/2013/dart/limited/#/performance


It's up to the individual whether a 1.4L NA engine would be found acceptable in a 3200# car. But carting around almost 2300 lb per liter of engine displacement I doubt you'd find many fans among active members on any ponycar site.


Norm

 

[Whiskey11]

Don't forget that no matter what path you take to satisfy CAFE, you still have to make the car commercially attractive enough to sell in the anticipated numbers. Particularly for cars with any sense of 'sport' about them, there has to be a semblance of acceptable acceleration. So if you go small-displacement for reasons of reduced internal friction and lower pumping losses, you're much more likely to need some means of providing more output than you can get from a small displacement NA engine. No, this is not for a car built purely for CAFE only. Nor are most cars.

A small-displacement turbo engine can still be top-dog, even mpg-wise. As an example, the current Dodge Dart when equipped with the 160HP 1.4L turbo engine gets an EPA estimated 39 mpg highway. Its 160HP 2.0L normally aspirated counterpart only gets 36 (IIRC, the city mpgs are the same). The turbo 1.4 has significantly greater torque than the NA 2.0 (184 vs 148).
.
http://www.dodge.com/en/2013/dart/limited/#/performance


It's up to the individual whether a 1.4L NA engine would be found acceptable in a 3200# car. But carting around almost 2300 lb per liter of engine displacement I doubt you'd find many fans among active members on any ponycar site.


Norm

A 1.4L isn't acceptable to me, and neither is a 2.0L. The Mustang already has heritage in the 2.3L 4 cylinder motors and so long as they aren't turds or wrapped in a turd (meaning stripped out small brakes, no performance options available that are worthwhile) it will be a pretty epic combination reminiscent of the SVO without the GT beating straight line performance.

I'm heavily interested in a 2.3L Ecoboost 4 (even if it doesn't have the same raw sound as the old 2.3L Lima based SVO/Turbo GT motors) for weight, balance and usable power. It sounds like it could be a great autocross car if it follows the rest of the Ecoboost family's mantra of gobs of torque early on and good power all around!

EDIT: I just noticed that on the Wikipedia page for the Ecoboost motors that there was a 2.0L EB in the Ford Explorer America Concept outputting 275HP/280lb*ft. If they manage to keep that same HP/Liter of displacement ratio that would put HP at 316 and torque at 320 for a 2.3L. I'm game, no seriously! ;)

 

[Norm Peterson]

I wasn't pitching a 1.4 in any guise for the S550. Only counterpointing the "you don't use a turbo when CAFE is important" thinking that has recently shown up.

In a little more disclosure - my daughter actually has a turbo 1.4 Dart, and it's actually a fairly peppy little ride. Take the turbo away and it wouldn't even be close, might as well be in a Toyota Yaris with half a ton of sandbags or barbell plates stuffed into it - before the driver gets in. Never mind if you then look at something weighing at least a hundred lbs more than the Dart's 3200-ish weight,

A 2.3-ish turbo would be a different matter, a lot closer to what my wife's Legacy 2.5GT (3400-ish weight, 260-ish HP & torque) is like. If that can be done and avoid the soggy off-boost response that her Subie has below about 2000 rpm while they're at it, you'd have a pretty nice package for autocross.


Norm

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Only counterpointing the "you don't use a turbo when CAFE is important" thinking that has recently shown up.
Norm

You're counterpointing something you just made up Norm. That's never been stated anywhere. The devil is in the details.

Maybe you're just lost in 550Boss's contention...which is/was CAFE is the only mission (design goal) for this engine. My point is that the turbo means CAFE IS NOT the ONLY goal...if CAFE were ONLY intent, it would not have a turbo since a na engine could have higher compression...therefore be more efficient, thus satisfying CAFE more effectively. Restating, there are better options for designing an engine solely for CAFE than the ecoboost derivatives.

Does this help explain it?

What's your engineering background?

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Well said !! Someone who actuslly appreciates the value of Logical Reasoning and Falsly predicated conclusions (ie false and unsubstantiated assumptions) !!! A High Distinction to you !!

Thanks. Unfortunately we're few and far between.

Cheers

 

[Overboost]

Well said !! Someone who actuslly appreciates the value of Logical Reasoning and Falsly predicated conclusions (ie false and unsubstantiated assumptions) !!! A High Distinction to you !!

Yes, it's not as common as you think around here. Quite a few people talk like they know but continue to prove that they don't. Logic on the Internet is a rare sight, but a pleasant one.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

No, this is not for a car built purely for CAFE only. Nor are most cars.

Just reread this...so we both disagree with S550Boss's statement.

 

[Norm Peterson]

You're counterpointing something you just made up Norm. That's never been stated anywhere. The devil is in the details.

Maybe you're just lost in 550Boss's contention...which is/was CAFE is the only mission (design goal) for this engine.

I'm not the one who got lost. Here's what you said the first time in response to S550 . . .

If it's sole mission was CAFE, why turbo it? A higher compression na 4 cylinder would be more economical, both in maufacturing as well as for the consumer at the pumps. The fact it will not be built like this and will instead have a turbo w/ slightly less compression means it is being built both for economy AND power...ergo 'eco-boost' (jeez, do I really have to explain it?). Based on this, it is actually more likely than not that we'll see a respectable hp #.

where S550 only talks about supporting CAFE. There is a difference between supporting CAFE and making it your car powertrain's prime directive.

You missed the point... sure anything is possible, but that's not the mission of this engine. It's mission is to support the CAFE average. That means it won't get 350 HP.

My point is that the turbo means CAFE IS NOT the ONLY goal...if CAFE were ONLY intent, it would not have a turbo since a na engine could have higher compression...therefore be more efficient, thus satisfying CAFE more effectively. Restating, there are better options for designing an engine solely for CAFE than the ecoboost derivatives.

Maybe that's your point now, but that's inconsistent with most any car built with sporting character so it doesn't make a lot of sense to read that into S550's text.

I thought you were an engineer? What's your engineering background? You understand thermodynamics, right? Maybe it's been a while, or maybe you just don't apply your knowledge to the machines you use everyday...? Higher compression = higher thermal efficiency, agreed? The turbo means compression ratio must be lowered to allow for higher knock resistance under boost. When not in boost, the comp is effectively lower than it could be otherwise, and efficiency takes a hit. Ya know, the whole reason why your Legacy is a slug out of boost like we discussed in the other thread?

Why aren't you reading everything I type for comprehension. Go find what I wrote about my wife's turbo Subaru just a few posts back and don't skip over it this time. Then decide what I may or may not understand about such matters just from real-world experience before throwing any more pebbles. Not that I expect this to sink in the first time, but I've had at least academic interest in turbocharging since the first round of regulatory pressure for mpg increases.


Norm

Sponsored