2015 Mustang

mustangc

This too shall pass
Established Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
852
Location
Columbus IN
The 94 had less hp than the previous fox bodies.

:??:The Mustang GT's had 10 more rated horsepower in 1994 than the '93 fox... 205 -> 215. The SVT Cobra had more power, too in 1994 (235 -> 240).

I realize the 87-92 cars were rated at 225 hp, but the 1993 GT didn't lose 20 horsepower compared to the 1992 model. Ford changed their testing method for 1993, so that skews the results somewhat.​

There was a huge downsizing in body and power in the mid-70's. It might happen again, but looking at what the competition is doing suggests that Ford also won't have to neuter the pony just yet... Besides, in listening to the guys who have worked on Team Mustang in the past, I think they'd rather move to Moscow than let us down. They're Mustang fans, too!
 

BCPD199

Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
431
Location
Palm Coast, FL
I dunno...remember there was another era of "horsepower wars" back in the late 60s, early 70s. Cars were bigger and heavier but also were in the 400-500hp range. then they went back down again. Hell the first 5.0 was 220hp in the late 60s and I think the mustang 2 5.0s were under 150hp.

My '82 5.0 GT (which was the car to have back then!) was a 5.0 liter 2 barrel carb and if I remember correctly produced 157 hsp. You could also get optional Recaros back then as well! Keep in mind, with that whopping 157 hsp, you could blow the doors off of any Camaro or 'vette of that era.

Remember burying the needle on those 85 MPH speedo's?
 
Last edited:

mgallo13

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
94
Location
New Jersey
8 New Cars Coming to Thrill You in 2014 | Wall St. Cheat Sheet

Got this off of yahoo this morning.

I wonder if the drawing in this pic is close to what it will be?

If it is, I am very happy with my 13 and will not even think about trading up.

I love this quote too out of the article.

"Expect a 2.3 L, 16-valve turbo engine with manual and auto transmission, with Ford opting for a split-and-jointed drive axle for the first time ever. The Mustang will celebrate its 50th birthday in 2014, so expect Ford to come out with the most fearsome version of its classic ride."

Most fearsome version of its classic ride? Don't think so!

I really really really hope Ford doesn't make this mistake. But it looks like it is headed that way.

You're aware the 2.3L ecoboost is merely an option and not the only engine right?... It's also going to have new versions of the current v6 and the 5.0 in the 11-14 mustangs, most likely direct injected.
 

04svtsnke

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
2,154
Location
Winston Salem
I don't know why some of you mock the Ecoboost 4 cylinder. It's supposed to have around 350 hp and 300+ ft/lb of torque. It's also not the base motor, its the V6. Of course ford is t going to call it an svo but I'd think an intake/exhaust/tune Ecoboost 4 with a suspension similar to that of the boss/gt500 with some other minor suspension work could really be a fun car. Being the lightest of the offerings plays in its benefit as well.

Of course I'm not taking away from either the v6 or 5.0( which I also think will be upgraded with direct injection as a minimum) because I think they'll be great too. I'm not even going to even get into the next svt platform as I know its going to kick ass.
 

Chris!

Former Ford Dealer
Established Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
7,692
Location
Boston MA
What I find comical is the whole "4cyl turbo, must be slow!"

Lest you forget the 2.0l has 252hp in the focus ST (more horspower than the GT of only 10 years ago) which has 70more HP than the 1.6 Ecoboost

All things being. Equal- What makes anyone think that the 2.3L will have less than 300hp? Or even less than 330hp?

Ya'll are high. That car will be light, fast, and fun.
 

Nathan'sTsi

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
1,293
Location
Texas
I would probably sell my gt500 in favor of an ecoboost v6 mustang (provided it had leather and nice stereo), but not for the turbo 4. For the turbo 4 to make the power I would want on 93 octane, the powerband would not be all that fun.For people thinking thr 4 cylinder eb will be "fast" , remember it will be down about 100 ponies ti a gt, which is just quick.
 

50 Proof

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
2,107
Location
Orange County
I dunno...remember there was another era of "horsepower wars" back in the late 60s, early 70s. Cars were bigger and heavier but also were in the 400-500hp range. then they went back down again. Hell the first 5.0 was 220hp in the late 60s and I think the mustang 2 5.0s were under 150hp.

Back in the 60's and early 70's horsepower rating was gross power with no accessories and basically a bare engine. Horsepower ratings were later changed to a net calculation after adding in accessories and what not.

http://www.carsdirect.com/car-maintenance/net-horsepower-vs-gross-definition-and-ratings-guide
 

50 Proof

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
2,107
Location
Orange County
What the holy hell do they have going on with that front bumper? The grill/nose reminds me too much of the 2014.
 
Last edited:

HEMI LOL

Twin Screwed
Established Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
3,569
Location
Tacoma
This car is going to look fantastic. Ford continues its hot streak of sexy designs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top