That was a reality check, caddy92 
The Ecoboost Disappointment
- Thread starter Softballer77
- Start date
CaDDy
Banned
That was a reality check, caddy92
I for one am happy with the development of the Mustang. The fact that it will attract so many more people excites me.
If soiling of the mustang brand happens with a stout little 4 cylinder joining the stable then what of the 20" dubs on GT's (and cobras/Shelby's) with zip tied body kits and gaudy lights? The mustangs been long dead in that case.
You need to look around more.
Subaru WRX STi
Hyundai Sonata 2.0T
Hyundai Genesis 2.0T
Hyundai Veloster Turbo
Kia Optima SX/SXL
BMW 228i/328i/428i/528i/Z4 sDrive28i
Audi A4 2.0T/A5 2.0T/TT
FIAT 500 Abarth
Chevrolet Sonic
Chevrolet Cruze
Ford Fiesta ST (which I can't believe you mentioned the Focus ST and forgot about this one)
Ford Fusion Ecoboost (1.5L & 2.0L)
Anyway, those are just some I rattled off from the top of my head. The point being, the market is swimming in turbocharged 4-bangers. Add in small SUVs and crossovers and the list gets even bigger.
The first Mustangs were inline sixes. And if Ford brought out a twin-turbo I6 Mustang, they wouldn't be able to make enough of them or get them off the assembly line fast enough. Even died-in-the-wool V8 guys would want one. I know I would!
What, pray tell, is a "typical Shelby owner?" And when you get done describing that, please tell me ONE business person who has ever been in it "just because" and didn't want to turn a buck. I'll wait for the second answer. Shelby may not have had anything to do with developing the '13 GT500 (and you're wrong, by the way), but SVT sure did go through great lengths to get his approval and signoff on it. There's no way you haven't seen the documentary video clips on Youtube where the SVT crew themselves say that Shelby was involved.
They'd put something together, he'd test it then give his feedback on what they needed to improve upon. Do you not consider that being involved in the development? He was practically a lead tester.Ever heard of the Shelby Terlingua Mustang? It was a V6 Mustang that Shelby did with the S197 platform. If a 4-cylinder had been around before he passed (and was still in partnership with Ford) he would have been made a turbo version of one. He stated himself that he enjoyed making those turbo 4s back in the '80s. But he also qualified that by stating that was pretty much all he had to work with. He was still on the outs with Ford at the time, and Iococca asked him to do something with Chrysler. (BTW, the Viper owes part of its existence to Carroll Shelby and the orginal Cobra.)
Really? SVT created this car?
Really? And what makes modding an already turbocharged 4-banger any more difficult? The exact same principles apply. A four-stroke engine is a four-stroke engine. The cylinder count is virtually irrelevant. In as little as about 3 hours our Forester went from 230HP to 370HP, and it was as simple as swapping the turbo and loading a tune. It took me 3 times as long just to install my Whipple. And the same goes for my Killer Chiller.
<end of direct replies>
Some of you guys are really showing your [lack of] age with all this "a 4-banger is as good as a V8" love. A four cylinder engine will never make as much power as an equally modded V8. Yes, getting a 4-banger to spit out 500+HP is an impressive feat, full stop. But let's be real here. We have V8 cars on the market that roll off the assembly line with more power than that, even naturally aspirated! Five hundred HP isn't even a respectable goal for a V8 these days. Mildly modded GT500s immediately jump into the 700 - 800 HP range just as a jumping off point! That's why it's nothing special to talk about unless you're pushing 1,000HP! You can pretty much bank on any 4-banger putting out 700+HP to not have a single stock internal part; and in most cases not even the stock block. There are GT500s pushing 900+HP with nothing more than a blower swap and fueling upgrades. Any 4-banger making north of 1000HP is doubtful to be a real streetable car and will run like crap when not on full boil, whereas people are driving 1000HP V8 cars to and fro on a daily basis in comfort.
Last edited:
Dude, take a chill pill. And if you going to quote, at least quote all the relevant statements. When the GT500 first came out it was exciting news and everybody was figuring it out. Now, it's "been there, done that" and stupid easy to make stupid big #'s. The new Ecoboost 2.3 is something different and will be a challenge like anything else first released. Direct injection, integrated exhaust manifold, plastic intake manifold, twin scroll turbo, TiVCT, etc. Take your pick, it will all take time for owners and vendors to figure out how fast and how far it can be pushed. Since it's not the performance engine (unlike a Subaru) there will likely be less factory or aftermarket support well. So again, it's a challenge.
Who said the Ecoboost 4's could make similar #'s to a GT500? Obviously it would be stupid to even try on anything resembling a daily driver. But as far as a balanced, corner-carver-capable, streetable Mustang it would certainly be a better starting platform. The 1000+hp, 3800+lb supercharged cars people build now are pretty much one-trick pony's. Granted it's a nice trick, but how often can you use it in the real world?
Last edited:
My 2c worth...
Most 2.3t Mustangs don't run like Huber's or Stingers cars and very few people have the knowledge to make them run hard. But that's half the fun, any idiot can make big power on a Shelby or Coyote motor. No one even gets exited about it anymore unless you have 1000+hp. But guaranteed the first person to run 10's or even 11's on a 2015 with the 2.3 Ecoboost will be in a magazine. It just something different and a challenge. Plus it will likely handle better, be cheaper to insure and get better mileage for those who care. That said, I agree there certainly isn't much more American than a big V8 sounding muscle car. And if I didn't own one I would miss it. But the sound of a turbo spooling through a free flowing exhaust & intake still sounds better than most 6cyl's I hear. Even with a turbo, most GN's and GTR's sound like shit.
I can't quite figure out how the 2.3 makes sense in the 2015 lineup. It will certainly have more performance potential vs. the 6 for most people. But I would have been happier with a bigger 2.5 or 2.7 and about 350hp/torque, and less weight on the nose. At least that would seem like a proper upgrade vs. the 6. Initial reports make it sound a little too sterile and subdued for an upgrade engine.
The Mustang SVO did make sense back in its day. Unfortunately it was expensive (for a Mustang), gas got cheap and Ford never marketed it well. But it would absolutely run circles around a 5.0 on any road course or autocross, was just as fast and got better mileage. It probably handled better than any Mustang built up until 2005. And unlike a NA 4cyl car it definitely had a soul, and the respect of most 5.0 owners back in the day. Perhaps just not to some of today's Shelby nut-swingers who just drive in a straight line, only on Sundays when the sun is out
I just want to point out the bolded part as being untrue. I'm guessing you forgot about the 2000 cobra r?
On topic, while I think it is a good idea to offer the 2.3 ecoboost, I fail to see how it will be a legitimate performance replacement for the 5.0 and/or other v8 engines this generation mustang will offer. Sure, it will be a little lighter (relatively speaking) but it will be down on power significantly compared to the 5.0.
I see nothing wrong with people like a 4 cylinder mustang but let's be realistic here.
Holy mother of fanboy, and I thought the GM crowd was bad!
The only place I see the EB being superior is at an autocross track where 300 hp is enough and the lighter nose and overall weight give it the edge. I don't think we will see a v8-less mustang for a VERY long time.
I am waiting to see what Ford sets the rev limit to on the turbo 4. Nothing like reving the four cylinders to high RPMs.
Huh? I think you meant out of 4 cylinders only. And that is a stretch (see STi, CLA45 AMG, Evo, etc.). The Mustang GT has a much better power to weight ratio than the ecoboost - much better. Not to mention the Camaro SS, Challenger RT, etc. And many other foreign cars. Heck, I think a v6 Camry has a better power to weight ratio than the ecoboost. I think you are leaving out some important parts of that quote.
Last edited:
Hope you don't get too butthurt when a stock EB I-4 mustang freight trains your 02 GT.
How old are you?
GT-Rs have most certainly not always been known for V6s. Only the current generation Nissan GTR is a V6. All prior Skyline GT-Rs were powered by an Inline 6.
and what Mustang enthusiast, or car enthusiast in general, doesn't remember the SVO Mustang? The SVO was the "Shelby GT500" of its day. It was the fastest and most expensive Mustang available at the time. It made just as much power as the 302 V8 found in the Mustang GT, as well as matched the power output of the 305 V8 found in the Camaro/Firebird F-body twins of that era.
For those of you dissing the SVO, learn your history before running off at the mouth. The SVO failed for one reason...... It was ahead of it's time.
I love my V-8's, but had friends that had some very respectable turbo 2.3's that could run good 1/4 mile times, as well as great road course times.
The current ecoboost 2.3 will likely pick up where the other left off. If that means a different set of "Ricer" Mustang enthusiasts, then great!
Oh, and for those saying they have never seen an SVO with 2.3 going down the 1/4 mile, watch and learn:
http://youtu.be/dUFMBNmjiuo
http://youtu.be/BH8rBJXz6d0#aid=P9uaBAxIdVA
http://www.streetfire.net/video/84-mustang-svo-14-mile-stock-orig-motor-stock_94757.htm
http://youtu.be/mJsuxOl8ibo
http://youtu.be/-QGcVltiiko
http://youtu.be/viY4BlN4yaE
The point is that the 2.3 turbo SVO was a great performer, and had decent aftermarket support. I believe the new Ecoboost 2.3 will have great performance, develop a great aftermarket, and have a loyal enthusiast following. I am not sure there is a negative to any of those.......
I love my V-8's, but had friends that had some very respectable turbo 2.3's that could run good 1/4 mile times, as well as great road course times.
The current ecoboost 2.3 will likely pick up where the other left off. If that means a different set of "Ricer" Mustang enthusiasts, then great!
Oh, and for those saying they have never seen an SVO with 2.3 going down the 1/4 mile, watch and learn:
http://youtu.be/dUFMBNmjiuo
http://youtu.be/BH8rBJXz6d0#aid=P9uaBAxIdVA
http://www.streetfire.net/video/84-mustang-svo-14-mile-stock-orig-motor-stock_94757.htm
http://youtu.be/mJsuxOl8ibo
http://youtu.be/-QGcVltiiko
http://youtu.be/viY4BlN4yaE
The point is that the 2.3 turbo SVO was a great performer, and had decent aftermarket support. I believe the new Ecoboost 2.3 will have great performance, develop a great aftermarket, and have a loyal enthusiast following. I am not sure there is a negative to any of those.......
It has two limitations as I see it:
1. Direct injection. When a DI car runs out of fuel, it is hard to get more, plain and simple.
2. The integrated exhaust manifold. Once that thing chokes it will be very hard to make more power. Granted, assuming this engine is based as heavily on the 2.3L mazdaspeed3 motor as we seem to think it is, I have tuned several BT mazdas making 450 whp on the stock exhaust manifold so... maybe it wont be terrible.
I saw one at the dealership yesterday and I have never drooled over a car like that. I saw a GT at the auto show a while back, but really being able to get up close and look at this car... it really is something else.
1. Direct injection. When a DI car runs out of fuel, it is hard to get more, plain and simple.
2. The integrated exhaust manifold. Once that thing chokes it will be very hard to make more power. Granted, assuming this engine is based as heavily on the 2.3L mazdaspeed3 motor as we seem to think it is, I have tuned several BT mazdas making 450 whp on the stock exhaust manifold so... maybe it wont be terrible.
I saw one at the dealership yesterday and I have never drooled over a car like that. I saw a GT at the auto show a while back, but really being able to get up close and look at this car... it really is something else.
whoa whoa whoa whoa, based on the turd MZR? i don't think so Tim. i work for mazda, and the MZR is an OLD, like T-rex OLD ford design. the new 2.3 is based entirely off the EB 2.0 engine which was an "all new" design from ford. there is zero MZR in the new 2.3.
Then i stand corrected. I'm aware its old, i came from that platform, but 2.3L DI engine to 2.3L DI engine... the original thought was that the MZR was the guinea pig or at least starting point to some extent. The main point from my statement however, was the power capability of the stock exhaust manifold. The MZR cylinder head and stock cams are nothing short of awful, and thats no secret, but a badass cylinder head / cam package in the ecoboost wont mean anything if you cant get that exhaust out. Trust me, i WANT this car to be badass, i'm just not getting my hopes up just yet.
wow...
I am gonna be the first one to say that I full suspect the ecoboost mustang to be able to hit 400hp on a tune.
Direct injection, Turbo and fully forged rotating assembly from ford. DOHC variable cam timing.
This bitch will fly mark my words when the tuners unlock them.
I am gonna be the first one to say that I full suspect the ecoboost mustang to be able to hit 400hp on a tune.
Direct injection, Turbo and fully forged rotating assembly from ford. DOHC variable cam timing.
This bitch will fly mark my words when the tuners unlock them.
Users who are viewing this thread
