Page 1 of 67 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 663

Thread: Run for cover! (The Ford Mustang Thread)

  1. #1
    Bad Taste novicius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Mad-city
    Posts
    4,125

    Run for cover! (The Ford Mustang Thread)

    (Continued from here.)







    Ford Mustang EcoBoost: Driven

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistonheads.com
    Ford claims 310hp, 320lb ft and a US highway economy figure of 32mpg that should translate into something over 40mpg on the official NEDC test. First impressions are good: the motor fires into life with a nice hard-edged exhaust note and there's appropriately Mustang urge low down. The car we drove was fitted with the optional six-speed auto, but even working through the slush of the torque converter throttle response is decent and there's little lag. At everyday speeds, it works well.

    Ask for more and the engine breaks sweat. It's been tuned to deliver best in the mid range and it starts to feel breathless well before it gets to the 6,500rpm redline and the soundtrack gains a harshness that suggests the motor isn't really appreciating the workout. There's less at the top end than the brawny low-down response has led you to expect; the Mustang is plenty fast in absolute terms - a mid-5s 0-60mph according to US magazines - but you feel a bit short-changed when you try to rev it out.
    Huh, I'm surprised that it runs out of breath towards redline. I'd think that early EcoBoost owners are going to feel dissatisfied compared to the cheaper V6 (that is, until they re-flash the ECUs ).

    As an aside, keep in mind that the weight of the 5.0L GT as been stated as being in the 3,750-3,800 lb. region, aka as fat as the current Camaro now. The new Camaro could end up being as much as 250-300 lbs. lighter than the new Mustang.
    Last edited by novicius; September 18th, 2014 at 09:26 AM.

  2. #2
    Corvette Enthusiast Kchrpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    5,831
    Lots of mid-range, breathless at the top? Sounds like the turbo 4 in the Mazdaspeed.
    Get that weak shit off my track

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,583
    Wonder if Americans are really ready to embrace a 4 cylinder Mustang.

  4. #4
    Bad Taste novicius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Mad-city
    Posts
    4,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity View Post
    Wonder if Americans are really ready to embrace a 400+ HP 4 cylinder Mustang.
    FTFY.

  5. #5
    Member Member 21Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Posts
    4,129
    I like it!

    FiFTY?

  6. #6
    Ask me about my bottom br
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ox.mx
    Posts
    1,849
    What happened to Dat Ass?
    acket.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,583
    I really like the looks all around, but even I find a 4 cylinder Mustang kinda weird. That profile... that big bulging hood should have a big engine residing inside it... Hope it'll at least sound good. Not going to be like the turbo charged whimpy F-1 cars...

    BTW, I thought it's 310HP... where did you get the 400+ from? Does it have the potential to output that much after some sort of after market mods?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    8,720
    Let's remember the Mustang had a four cylinder for almost twenty years before it went back to the V6/V8 only... and some of those four cylinder 'stangs were pretty awesome....



    ...and seriously threatened their V8 brothers!

    The fact that the torque > HP leads me to believe the breathing issue is tuning - boost tapering off or maybe cam selection - and quite possibly designed to make the four slot in neatly between the six and eight. The exact same thing was true of the SVO (and the XR4Ti for that matter), where they didn't want to cannibalize Mustang GT sales by having a magical 240-250hp four cylinder running around. It's certainly possible the issue is from a shitty head (also true of the Lima 2.3t) that they didn't have incentive to fix, but in 2014 I don't think that Ford has the luxury of introducing pumping losses like they did 30 years ago.

    I read that Ford said the weight gain was between 28 and 87lbs depending on model, so not too bad. The bump in MSRP ($1k-$3k) seems a little rough. OTOH, nobody knows exactly what an ATS-based Camaro is going to look like. The ATS is an expensive car and is built using some high end materials. The only way GM will be able to keep its weight down is by retaining those materials, so either (IMHO) the Camaro will get lighter and more expensive - or the opposite. I think it's also conceivable that Ford left themselves a route for improvement - more power, less weight, whatever - to magically produce once they see the Camaro and/or to keep the Mustang fresh for the next several years.

    Personally, ATM, I like this new car, but I'm not sure I'd chose it over a '13/'14. My friend ostensibly ordered one (not sure if the four or six, definitely not the eight), so I guess I'll see...

  9. #9
    Bad Taste novicius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Mad-city
    Posts
    4,125
    2.3ecoboost-motor.jpg

    I wonder if it's using the Compacted Graphite Iron head/cylinder walls like the other EcoBoost V6's do?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    8,720
    400hp is sounding a little ambitious from this mill... that exhaust manifold is going to be a restriction in making big power. Still, ~350-370hp from a 2.3t is nothing to sneeze at.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •