By on July 17, 2014

IMG_0271-550x400

Power and weight figures for the 2015 Ford Mustang have been released, and while the 5.0L Coyote V8 gets a nice bump in power, the V6 gets dialed back a bit, to help put some distance between it and the new Ecoboost 2.3L engine.

For 2015, the Mustang will get

  • A 3.7L V6 making 300 horsepower/280 lb-ft V6 (-5hp). Curb weight is 3526(+30 lbs)/3530 lbs (+12lbs) for the manual and automatic.
  • A 5.0L V8 making 435 horsepower/400 lb-ft (+15hp/+10 lb-ft). Curb weight is 3705/3729 (+87lbs/+54lbs).
  • A 2.3L Ecoboost 4-cylinder making 310 horsepower/320 lb-ft. Curb weight is 3532/3524.

While the V6 Mustang was a darling of the cheap performance car crowd, the Ecoboost is going to be positioned above the V6 as a premium engine option. Will it be like the old SVO Stang of the 1980’s, where it was the true performance option, or is it just a play for people who have a fondness for boosted 4-bangers?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

95 Comments on “Ford Neuters V6 Mustang To Help Ecoboost Reproduce...”


  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Wow that is a little shocking. I had assumed that the 4 cyl would be the low cost entry level say 275 hp option.

    Hmmmmmmmmmm Ecobost Track Pack, por favor. Especially if the Ecobost model manages a near 50/50 weight distribution.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Well if the numbers above are correct the boosted 4 weighs more, 6 lbs, than the V6 when equipped with the correct transmission. The interesting thing is when equipped with the slush box the 4 is 6 lbs less.

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      In all the info the past year or so, the EcoBoost has always been the higher output engine, especially in Torque.

      The Gen Mustang is not a ‘Front’ mid engine layout, so not likely that a 50/50 weight distribution could be achieved even with the EcoBoost. In fact it is bothersome that the weight difference is negligible. Doesn’t bode well for a much lighter more responsive front end, but I think that is part of the intent of the EcoBoost by Ford engineers and Euro marketing, so I expect we will find it so.

      I believe most of the weight is in the extensive content of the EcoBoost over the base V-6, so the front end weight should be somewhat lower then the V-6, and have a lower transverse CG over the front axle. It should still be the best handling car of the three.

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    So they shortened its schlong a little for marketing purposes. Ok, I guess, but why not make the Eco-Boost a little more powerful. Like add a chip that allows more boost or something.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Perhaps an SVO option later that bumps the Ecoboost to 350 hp? There is a huge gap between 310 and the 435 option above it.

      Or maybe, just maybe… (wait for it)… Trifecta Tune, anyone?

      • 0 avatar
        carguy

        +1: They left plenty of room for an SVO at the 350 hp mark.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff Weimer

          If they have an SVO, it must have the double-decker spoiler and offset hood scoop or no sale.

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            The SVO had the Bi-wing spoiler and a single unit. The Bi-wing worked quite well.
            My only problem with it was obstructing the central rear view, not a big deal, if your use too using your side mirrors, and I am.

            The other problem was the yahoos who were always wanting to race you. They would come up on your rear and rev the motors while jumping ahead way to close to your rear end, or on your side and nearly driving into you. Not appreciated when you have your family on board.

            The Bi-wing SVO just had to much Boy Racer look to it.

            My 2000 Cobra ‘R’s single plane spoiler was raised just enough to see under it. Only put a few miles on the street with it as it was never licensed, so didn’t have any encounters with yahoos.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        SVO, is no longer the acronym used by Ford, SVT Would be the current abbreviation for a special tuned Ford product, by the SVT.

        Ford de-tuned the original SVO so it wouldn’t be faster then the V-8, despite that, most SVO examples were still faster the the GT.

        Ford used a heavier flywheel to slow down acceleration of the SVO. Put a lighter flywheel back on, an hour and half or less job, and it would easily scoot past a GT without any other mods.

        This time they de-tuned the ‘V’ engine… Ironic

        • 0 avatar
          Ryoku75

          After driving a Merkur Xr4 with a similar turbo engine I have to disagree, that things LAG alone makes it a bit slow to go. Drove a 5.0 Marquis that was barely quicker, but the power curb was a bit smoother.

          If Ford was worried about the turbo 4 they wouldn’t have made it.

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            The Merkur ‘XR4Ti’ wasn’t an SVO. Programming was different and it had 30 less Hp then the 85-1/2 _ 86′ SVO’s. The XR4Ti is a great little car and well worth picking up for bargain prices. Nice SVO’s are climbing in value.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Why de-tune any of the motors?

      It’s all about trying to create a reason for being for the Ecoboost version Mustang, at a price point that Ford wants to peg to a specific target.

      It’s the same reason Porsche de-tunes certain of its flat sixes, so as to not encroach upon the holy 911, and keep its price elevated.

      And its deeply cynical product development/marketing, IMO.

      Instead of de-tuning the V6, Ford should’ve maxed its potential, especially since there’s barely any weight difference between the 2.3 Ecoboost & 3.7 V6 Mustang versions.

      But I’m sure the aftermarket will relatively efficiently craft the better solution, so there’s at least that.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        “And its deeply cynical product development/marketing, IMO.” Oh! I like that comment, it applies to a lot of Ford decisions, like the weak drive line and speed limiting in the current generation Mustang V-6.

        I’m with you on developing the V-6 as a real performance Mustang. It is all there, but the durability and the willingness on the part of Ford. I like the idea of a V-6 GT or SVT-6, though, I would still go with the EcoBoost.

      • 0 avatar
        2fast4u

        Actually, Autoguide said that the v6 has less peak horsepower because the car’s hood had been lowered 35mm. This change required redesigning of the intake manifold from the previous model year

  • avatar
    ...m...

    …i’d expect the V6 to offer a lot more tuning potential than the factory-boosted four, though…

    • 0 avatar
      Aquineas

      Hmmm don’t know that’s been consistent with what I’ve seen on other cars. Historically on things like the Volkswagen/Audi 1.8T, you could typically see some pretty appreciable boost increases with just a chip.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      Depending on the aggressiveness of the factory program, you can do a LOT of things with a boosted engine that you can’t do with an NA one (at least with just a chip.)

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      Sure…if you go FI on the 3.7. You can spend $7K and get similar performance to the V8. But the 2.3 will end up with tunes for ~$500 that would cost considerably more for the same increases from the NA 3.7.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    The SVO was a flop because the lousy turbo engine was never the true performance option. The cheap V8 was always faster, more reliable, and possessed of better NVH. It didn’t weigh much more either, and the total vehicle weight for the V8 was sometimes less.

    Is the V6 going to come with a real drive shaft this time?

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      The main reason Ford didn’t sell more SVO Mustangs is they cost a lot more than a V8 model, even the GTs. Like ~50% more expensive.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I don’t know how you can single out the real reason when there was scarcely an argument for the SVO because it combined a higher price with inferior performance and engine refinement. The Mustang would have been better off without the SVO. Then Ford could have fitted the superior brakes, seats, and suspension of the SVO to the GT, creating the best possible Fox. The smart thing to do today is find an SVO that someone has given up on waiting for it to become a collector’s item and then swap in a built Windsor with aluminum heads. They’re cheaper than equivalent condition GTs, which are scarcer because they got used up, and the SVOs still have better everything except the engine.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          The money they were asking for the SVOs was too much for any Mustang to sell in any kind of numbers, no matter the powerplant. The price made it a non-starter. It was never really intended to be a volume car though.

          The smart swap for an SVO is a GM LS engine these days if the owner doesn’t care about resale to those that covet them rare 4 eyes.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Bastardizing an SVO would only be the dumbest thing ever! They’re easily tunable to 400+ reliable HP, while keeping its balance, braking, turning.

      So according to you, the current Mustang would be better off without the GT500?

      Straight line, zero to 60 wasn’t the point of SVO, but it was still faster than the 5.0. You just had to power-brake it to get turbo pressure. Well worth it!

      I’d heard about the SVO from car rags when it was new. They raved about it, when they had nothing good to say about the Mustang GT. “…goes like a scalded cat!”
      All I could afford a ’79 5.0 at the time, but kept that in mind. When I got around to test driving a 2 year old SVO, I wasn’t expecting much, but I dumped my modded 5.0 on the spot.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        The turbo pinto motor is a pos. SVOs are dirt cheap because the engine stinks. Fixing the car’s one major failings is the low cost secret to Fox supremacy. Besides, once 95% of the unworthy of driving low mileage stored SVOs have the engines they always should have had, the remaining “investments” will finally be worth as much as they cost new.

        • 0 avatar
          pragmatic

          For its time it was not bad – I drove one (in a XR4Ti) for 280,000 miles (original owner replaced head gasket at 36,000 due to a bad electric fan) figures below are from C&D (June 1983 for GT and September 1983 for the SVO)

          1983 GT cost $10,800
          175 hp@4000
          245 ft-lb@2400
          0-60 7.0 sec
          top speed 125
          70-0 208ft
          weight 3070
          Balance 56.6/43.4

          1984 SVO cost $16,000
          175hp@4400
          210 ft-lbs@3000
          0-60 7.5 sec
          top speed 128
          70-0 217 ft
          weight 3102
          Balance 59/41

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Actually the T2.3 is far from a POS Pinto motor. Fools swap out their motors without ever knowing what it was.

          High nickel content block and all forged internals. This was Ford 1st attempt at boosting a production engine and went completely overkill. 300,000+ mi engines under normal abuse.

          Do what you want with your’s if you ever get around to owning one. I’m just cluing you in on how stupid it’d be to dump the SVO’s T2.3.

          And I don’t care about investment value. That’s not why I bought mine. Investors should stay out of the muscle car market anyways. Ruins it for everyone. Good thing the masses have never heard of SVOs. It keeps prices down for those in the know. That’s the only reason SVOs will never truly be valuable. The ignorant have to know it exists to demand one.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        Reg; “You just had to power-brake it to get turbo pressure. Well worth it!”

        Actually, the EEC-IV computer would adjust for how you were using the engine. That adjustment could be engaged by momentarily revving the motor over about 4,500 rpm, or just doing a number of near max rpm gear changes. If you just floored it below 3,000 rpm when driving normally, the response would be less then spectacular, especially if short geared, part of it was turbo lag, the rest the computer setting, and being in the wrong gear. Downshift or upshift, while Rev-matching and the engine would come on hard.

        The V-8 never gave you that race engine feel the Turbo four did. Plus, the GT chassis and brakes were clearly inferior to the SVO. They felt like completely different cars.

        Again, the heavy flywheel killed response, slowed revs, and delayed boost. Change that flywheel and SVO became a lot more responsive and at times a handful for the uninitiated. In the hands of somebody who understood the dynamics of the system, it could be real threat to anybody in a Vette, 300ZX, 944, 5.0 Mustang, ‘F’ body cars. Add twisties to to the equation, and the new Vette, 944, and SVO ran way from the others. Add to that, high elevations, and none of its contemporaries could keep up with the SVO.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    The V8 is more than I would need for an everyday driver. But I would like the option to add performance down the line. So I wonder between the V6 and turbo, which is more reliably tuner friendly.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      Boosted engines are much more tuner friendly but for reliability the 3.7 port injected NA V6 is probably the way to go.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      The V8… seriously, its got scads of development time behind it in the aftermarket. Its nothing for a V8 car to pound down damn close to 500hp at the crank with a few bolt-ons and a tune.

      The 2015 car also features upgraded hardware from the Boss program and those engines even with high compression are able to run some serious boost with some eye popping power (on the order of eight or nine hundred horsepower to the rear wheels with appropriate supporting mods without the need to go into the engine).

      The V6 is no slouch either as I’ve seen (pointed this out elsewhere) 2011+ cars lay down nearly 300 horsepower to the rear wheels with a full compliment of bolt-ons and a tune.

      The EcoBoost car as far as the Mustang world is concerned is the one with the least amount of development time behind it. Its also Ford’s first twin scroll application so that’s another grey area for the Ford aftermarket although the turbo four is likely to give the most bang for the buck like the GT500 and Cobra did for mods (nothing like an overdrive pulley and tune on those cars and getting big gains on the cheap).

      The GT is also going to have the most for it out of the gate, as an example Whipple already has a kit lined up good for 750hp using a front feed twin screw (the blower is driven from the rear via a jackshaft)

  • avatar
    Aquineas

    How long do you think it will be before someone slaps in the 3.5 EcoBoost in one of these? That is if Ford doesn’t already have one of these planned…

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      I want that. The 3.5EB is going to have 380 HP and 460 ft-lb in the Navigator/Expedition and probably something similar in the 2015 F150. I’m sure it could be dialed up some more.

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    How long will the 3.7L last? When in the 2.7T going to replace it?

    I can see the 2.3T becoming the base engine soon. The 2.7T will fit nicely between the 2.3T and the 5.0L.

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      The 2.7 is going to do interesting things to their lineup. The 2.0T was too small for applications like the Explorer. The 2.3 will probably be enough. But the 2.7 will be a very nice upgrade from the NA 3.5/3.7 wherever those are offered. Hooray for torque.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Yes it will. I’d like to see the 2.3T or 2.7T in just about everything. I’d perfer the 2.7T though. It should be the standard engine for Lincolns bigger than the MKC.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Carol of the Fails.

    Wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

    “A 2.3L Ecoboost 4-cylinder making 310 horsepower/320 lb-ft. Curb weight is 3532/3524″

    Oh and at what rpm is it making those 310 ponies? 7000? 7500?

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      5500-5600

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Better than I thought, but that’s still somewhat high.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Its lower than pretty much any current V6. Honda, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, and GM V6s all hit peak HP over 6000 RPM. Most are around 6500 RPM.

          The goodness that is the 3800 had peak HP at lower RPMs. The Series III supercharged engines hit 260+ HP at 5400 RPM. That was the highest of all the 3800s I think.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “The goodness that is the 3800 had peak HP at lower RPMs. The Series III supercharged engines hit 260+ HP at 5400 RPM. That was the highest of all the 3800s I think.”

            Indeed, you quote the scripture well my son. There are so many RPM sinners in the world, let us pray they find usable horsepower.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            And the 7th seal was opened and the torque peaks were raised and the area under the curve flattened. I witnessed the Lamb riding in a flaming chariot that did make a thunderous exhaust noise…

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            So say we all.

          • 0 avatar
            DevilsRotary86

            “Indeed, you quote the scripture well my son. There are so many RPM sinners in the world, let us pray they find usable horsepower”

            And I am the very devil of all those sinners. My baby makes 201HP @7800 RPM and about 140ft-lbs at 7000 RPM and I couldn’t love it more. I love engines that know how to sing at the very top of the tach.

            Then there is the eternal project sitting in my garage with a 13B rotary engine, and we all know how much torque rotaries make at low RPM :)

          • 0 avatar
            tuffjuff

            I still don’t know who in their right mind buys the Ecoboost in this thing.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Here’s the thing: the way Ford has set up the trim levels, the V6 is only available as a stripper. If you want a nicer interior, or the performance package, you have to take either the turbo or the V8.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      I find it kind of funny that the Ecoboot actually weighs slightly MORE than the V6 model, at least with…automatic? I’m not really sure how that weight rating works.

      You’d think dropping two cylinders would bring the Ecoboost Mustang down to, I dunno, 3495 pounds.

      • 0 avatar
        pragmatic

        This is what disappoints me (the weight). If they are going to offer a 4 cylinder turbo at least work on a light weight engine/intercooler/turbo system and keep the total weight low. How the turbo and plumbing can out weight two extra cams and a V engine is beyond me (I did not expect a large weight reduction but I expected 30 – 50 lbs off the nose). Also move the battery to the trunk (at least on the ecoboost version). Since the ATS has no rear seat room, I might as well consider the ecoboost Stang and save some money over the 2.0T ATS. But if it has less than 48% of its weight on the rear wheels its a no go.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        That exhaust manifold for the twin scroll setup is probably a big bulky and heavy piece of cast iron if I had to guess plus you’ve got the turbo and its intake side plumbing which includes an air/air heat exchanger.

        The engine itself is probably marginally lighter than the V6 on its own so the accoutrements are where the weight is at (hmmm… wonder how much heavier a DI engine is if at all over a port injected setup?).

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      Power in hp is a function of torque * rpm /5050. Boosted fours delivery their torque very early and thus also deliver their maximum power well ahead of the red-line.

      The real enthusiast criticism of the boosted fours is that they sometimes don’t deliver the high rpm thrills of naturally aspirated engines. In many cases there is no point revving the engine beyond 6000 as the boost starts to taper to protect the engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      What are they doing to this engine in the Mustang that they’re not in the Lincoln MKS? In the Lincoln the 2.3 Ecoboost is rated at 285hp @5500rpms 305 lbs-ft @2750rpms

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        MOAR boost!

        I don’t know how different the 2.3T engines are. It could be just programming or extensive changes. In the F150, the 3.5EB has quite a few difference from the 3.5EB in the D-platform vehicles. Different heads, main bearings, turbos, more boost, upgraded cooling system, etc.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Here’s the actually press release from Ford explaining it

          “DEARBORN, Mich., July 17, 2014 – The all-new 2015 Ford Mustang offers three great engines including a standard 300-horsepower V6, a brand-new 310-horsepower EcoBoost® or an upgraded 435-horsepower V8. Each powerplant is available with either a manual or automatic transmission that makes the pony car a great all-around performer – no matter how the equipment is mixed and matched to suit any individual driving style.

          The fewer the pounds a car carries for every unit of horsepower generated by the engine, the quicker and nimbler it feels, making power-to-weight ratio a key measure of performance. A recent study by Autoblog of cars currently available in the U.S. market puts Mustang at the top of the charts in power-to-weight ratio for all three price categories a customer can specify.

          Mustang extends its lead further for 2015 with the EcoBoost-powered fastback now carrying fewer than 11.4 pounds per horsepower; Mustang GT has as few as 8.52 pounds per horsepower.

          Less is more, EcoBoost comes to Mustang
          The addition of a new 2.3-liter EcoBoost engine brings turbocharging to the Mustang powertrain lineup. This engine was designed specifically for Mustang, to meet the needs of drivers looking for outstanding performance and fuel efficiency.

          The geometry of the EcoBoost intake manifold and turbocharger housing has been optimized to provide better breathing and higher output in Mustang. Producing 310 horsepower and 320 lb.- ft. of torque, the 2.3-liter EcoBoost engine fits the bill for a true Mustang powerplant – with the highest power density yet from a Ford engine.

          “This EcoBoost engine delivers the healthy output Mustang drivers expect, regardless of the car’s speed,” said Scott Makowski, EcoBoost powertrain engineering manager. “It delivers where a Mustang driver expects it to – with a broad, flat torque curve and great driveability under any conditions.”

          The newest member of Ford’s global EcoBoost engine family, the 2.3-liter continues to take advantage of state-of-the-art technologies including direct fuel injection, twin independent variable camshaft timing and turbocharging to produce big-engine power and torque with improved fuel efficiency.

          The 2.3-liter EcoBoost is the first Ford engine to use a low-inertia twin-scroll turbocharger that provides quicker boost response while enabling lower emissions and improved efficiency. The cylinder head features an integrated exhaust manifold that separates the inner and outer pairs of cylinders into each of the two inlet passages to the turbo.

          Keeping the exhaust pulses separated from the next cylinder in the firing order virtually eliminates mixing losses and maximizes the pulse energy to the turbine wheel. The result is similar performance to a more complex twin-turbocharger configuration, meaning quicker turbine spin-up and torque delivery when the driver needs it for passing maneuvers.

          The separated exhaust ports also enable the exhaust valves to stay open longer for reduced pumping losses that improve specific fuel consumption compared to a single-scroll turbocharger configuration.

          With a compact mill generating nearly 135 horsepower per liter and more than 139 lb.-ft. of torque per liter – powering a performance car whose drivers are more inclined to use it – ensuring engine durability was critical. Enhancements to the Mustang EcoBoost engine to withstand the added stresses include:
          — Forged-steel crankshaft
          — Piston-cooling jets
          — Steel piston ring carriers
          — Premium bearing materials
          — Upgraded valve seat materials
          — Forged-steel connecting rods
          — High-pressure die-cast aluminum cylinder block with ladder-frame bearing caps
          — Deep-sump, die-cast aluminum oil pan

          The beating heart of a pony
          No Ford Mustang engine lineup would be complete without a great V8 engine at its core. The 5.0-liter V8 powers into a new generation with a host of upgrades that help it breathe better, especially at higher engine speeds. Many of these changes are derived from lessons learned in developing the special-edition 2012 Mustang Boss 302.

          Getting air into the cylinders and exhaust out is key to generating more power and torque from any engine. That has been the focus in the development of this V8, which features:
          — Larger intake valves
          — Larger exhaust valves
          — Revised intake camshafts
          — Revised exhaust camshafts
          — Stiffer valve springs ensure valves close completely at high rpm
          — New cylinder head casting – revised ports provide straighter path to the valves for less
          restrictive intake and exhaust flow; combustion chamber modifications accommodate
          larger valves
          — Sinter forged connecting rods are lighter and more durable for high-rpm operation
          — Redesigned piston tops – deeper cutouts clear the new larger valves
          — Rebalanced forged crankshaft to support higher-rpm operation

          These upgrades have boosted output of the V8 to 435 horsepower and 400 lb.-ft. of torque.

          A new intake manifold includes charge motion control valves to partially close off port flow at lower engine speeds. This increases the air charge tumble and swirl for improved air-fuel mixing, resulting in better fuel economy, improved idle stability and lower emissions.

          The variable camshaft timing on the intake side now has a greater range of adjustment available thanks to mid-lock phasers. This enables better optimized control of the valve timing over a broader range of engine speeds and loads for improved fuel economy and emissions.

          Shifting gears
          More than most drivers, Mustang owners like to take control and shift for themselves. Whether they select a fully manual gearbox or the updated automatic transmission, the experience will be better than in any previous pony.

          The manual has a new shift linkage design for easier engagement and improved precision. The shift lever is now positioned closer to the driver and away from the cupholders, creating a clear path for shifting.

          Mustang blends outstanding all-around performance and everyday usability. Drivers who prefer to let the car handle the shifting during their daily work run, but who still want to take control when the roads get twisty, will appreciate the new steering wheel-mounted shift paddles with rev-matching downshifts – now standard with the SelectShift® six-speed automatic transmission.

          The automatic also features a redesigned case with cast-in ribs that help make it stiffer and reduce weight. Internally, clutches are optimized and operating temperature increased to reduce friction. The output shaft is now supported by a ball bearing that enables a top speed of 155 mph for Mustang GT.

          With a choice of powertrains to suit driving preferences and lifestyles, the new Mustang has cutting-edge technology under the hood to match its modern design. Yet regardless of engine choice, the car remains quintessentially Mustang.”

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    That is one high strung 4 banger.

    Ford will never learn their lesson.

    I can’t wait for the proper V6 to return equal performance and better mileage (real MPG, not the fairy tale stuff Ford thinks up)

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Sorta agree with you on that on Silvy, mileage on the EcoBoost will most likely be disappointing.

      Ford has been really clever in this instance about selling its “One Ford” strategy with engines designed to game European fuel mileage standards and pretty much out of whack with the US driving environment.

      Don’t get me wrong I love me some boosted Ford hardware (especially the belt driven kind) but its just not a practical solution here.

      It is what it is though and Ford is able to sell it at a premium…

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Wow, I’d actually like to see that 2.3L Ecoboost 4-cylinder making 310 horsepower/320 lb-ft in something the buying public is forced to take a 4-banger like the Fusion or Escape, maybe then I’d consider a 4 cylinder, perhaps they will

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      I said this above, but a 270 hp 2.3T Fusion would be quite nice. The 2.0 should really be the mid-range motor on the Fusion, not the top.

      …And there shouldn’t be a 1.5 Fusion at all, I don’t care if it’s a good motor or not.

  • avatar
    Russycle

    I wish Ford had chosen a different displacement for the turbo. The 2.3 liter turbo Mustangs of the early 80s were such an over-hyped disappointment. “V8 power with 4-cylinder economy!!!” On paper, sure, in reality…not so much. Seeing 2.3 and Mustang anywhere near each other always makes me cringe.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Exactly. Anyone over thirty knows about the turbo or N/A 2.3 I4 in Mustang and overall how pathetic it was in practice. Who is going to be buying these (esp in base and mid trim)? I’m going to go with people over thirty.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        No one remembers that crap except for people like us. If they are people like us, they shouldn’t let the displacement size of an engine from the 1980s sway their buying decisions. Unless….its the engine that shall not be named….

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          That memory for now useless stuff is a curse actually. I can remember the HP of an IROC 350 from 1987 but danged if I can remember the important stuff.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Just wait until your kid is born…..hahaha :)

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Yeah, after the kid your life divides in two. There will be your old life “BK” (Before Kid) and your new life “AK” (After Kid) You will from the birth think in those terms until your last kid is in college when you are able to start your third life “NK” (No Kids)

            It is written and set in stone

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          “If they are people like us, they shouldn’t let the displacement size of an engine from the 1980s sway their buying decisions”

          I’m a person like me, and I’m not going to let me buy a 4-cyl Mustang, especially one in a displacement of 2.3 litres.

          Btw, the motor who shall not be named did not exist in the 80s.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I’d have the V8 too.

            Oh I am aware of the engine that shall not be named not existing in the 80s. It tempted me in the late 90s/early 00s. The devil’s Mopar salesman revealled the engine that shall not be named to me. It was praised as technologically advanced with DOHC and excellent pricing. But I knew that it was a false idol. Nay I said! I must have the SOHC 3.2L in my used LH car instead.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I don’t think it’s coincidence that the Coyote displaces 5.0 liters. Which I find ironic, since the famous “5.0” from 20 years ago was actually a “4.9”

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        Having driven a Merkur with that turbo 2.3 I won’t argue how lousy it was, no power til you’re at 50mph going downhill with the 3-speed in kickdown (fyi my 3 speed Omni felt equal, the slushbox wasn’t at fault). Afterwards, the engine will be hotter than Hades.

        Its silly how Chrysler/Saab/Volvo could make meaty turbo 4s but not Ford.

        • 0 avatar
          pragmatic

          Well Ford cheapened out on the XR4Ti. While later SVOs and TC had 200 hp the XR4Ti was limited to 175 (to keep it slower than the Mustang). They also went with a crappy automatic and in those the boost was limited and power was down to 145 hp.

          So the slushbox was at fault, if you had tested the MT you would have 30 more hp.

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      Reg: ” On paper, sure, in reality…not so much.” Really!

      I put over 60,000+ road/trip miles on my SVO, even blasting through the Rockies, it would break over 30MPG… Dial it back to 55-60mph and 31-33MPG was everyday stuff.

      Unless you lived with the car, what is the basis for your comment?

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    The very thought of “tooner mustangz” makes it easy to know which one I’d never pick up pre-owned.

  • avatar
    mnm4ever

    I am surprised at the significant difference in weight between the Ecoboost and the GT… 175lbs is nothing to sneeze at. If Ford’s turbo engines take to tuning as well as VW’s 2.0T, then that engine should see 350+hp within weeks of it’s debut. I would agree that the V6 is probably still going to be the bargain performance model and possibly better at the economy/performance trade-off, but aside from an exhaust and intake there isn’t going to be much affordable tuning options. You will get back the lost HP, but the turbo engine can see big HP gains with just a little extra boost from an inexpensive chip tune… NA motors can’t get that kind of bang for the buck.

    A lightly tuned Ecoboost with it’s lower weight will probably be the best all around performance Mustang for the dollar. I still want the rumble of the V8 with mine, but I bet they sell a ton of the turbos. Maybe I can talk my wife into getting a 2015 Ecoboost, and I will get a CPO Boss 302 for myself???

  • avatar
    Madroc

    The V6 was “neutered” with a 1.6 percent in published horsepower [5/305].

    The V8 got a “nice bump” with a 3.5 percent increase [15/420].

    Both are rounding errors and it’s possible that neither reflects a statistically significant change in actual output of production engines.

    The bigger, older news is that the V6 is supposedly going to be stripper/rental-spec only. No more V6 performance pack. Pity, because if I wasn’t getting the (awesome!) Coyote I would rather have the excellent 3.7 than a turbo 4 boosted within an inch of its life.

    • 0 avatar
      2fast4u

      Actually, Autoguide reported that the v6 has less peak horsepower because the car’s hood had been lowered 35mm. This space constraint required redesigning of the intake manifold from the previous model year

  • avatar

    I’d rather see the EcoBoost in a 3000 pound car. But I have pleasant memories of the Ford T-Bird Turbo Coupes in the 1980s. They drove remarkable well. The SVOs weren’t all that fast but were fun to drive. But to a Ford dealer they were sale proof.

    • 0 avatar
      otaku

      “I have pleasant memories of the Ford T-Bird Turbo Coupes in the 1980s”

      Same here. Back in high school my older brother drove an ’87 Mustang GT, which I remember our father paying WAY too much for from the nearest dealership. After I got my license, I spent my own cash on a slightly used ’86 T-Bird Turbo Coupe for less than half of what my brother’s Mustang cost.

      The Mustang may have been faster, but the T-Bird (which shared much of the same Fox chassis components) was quieter, more comfortable, rode a heckuva lot better, used less gas, was significantly less lethal to drive during the winter months, and let’s face it, was just a much classier looking vehicle altogether.

      I actually flirted with owning an SVO for a few minutes there (I even took one for a brief test drive). That is, until I made the mistake of noticing the absolutely insane asking prices. I suspect there were a lot of potential SVO buyers that had a similar reaction, especially if they took a moment to consider all the T-Bird Turbo had to offer.

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      But to a Ford dealer they (SVOs) were sale proof.

      It wasn’t the car, it was the dealers. In September of 1986 I was looking to buy a SVO and there was one in my hometown. The dealership would not come off any money under the list price (IIRC $16K+). I got p!ssed and bought a fully loaded Mercury Capri 5.0 Sport Coupe (GT equivalent) for under $13K, a week later. The SVO was already last year’s model at that point in time. I guess my revenge was they eventually sold the car much later in the year…

      If my experience was anywhere near normal, then that was a good reason why.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        Reg; “It wasn’t the car, it was the dealers.”

        True enough. I got mine late in the sales year. The sales manager was my friend, and I made him an standing offer on their only SVO, but the owner of the dealership wouldn’t let go of it. Finally I got the call about the time the 87’s were coming out. Picked it up for around $13,000. The dealers and sales staff didn’t really understand what the SVO represented, and didn’t want to waste time on it because everyone shied at the price.

  • avatar
    Dimwit

    I want to see the mpg of the 4 banger. I wager if you hoon it like usual that the V8 will get *better* mileage.
    I’m still not convinced that boost for gassers is the way to go. Too many problems.

  • avatar
    canddmeyer

    This has nothing to do with the Ecobust. The vehicle weighs more, thus the V6 will have lower numbers.

  • avatar
    jim brewer

    Poor 3.7L Such a magnificent and unloved engine. Soon it will have no home i guess. Ford detunes a lot. the 5.0 liter engine only makes 360 hp in the pickup for some reason. I wonder what it could be?

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Tougher working environment so less stress on the engine (see Aussie version of US performance engines for another that has lower output in comparison) and tuned for more usable power down low.

      There are also component differences like the Mustang’s 5.0 uses tubular steel headers compared to the truck’s cast iron manifolds.

  • avatar
    racer-esq.

    The more I see the new Mustang the more I think the current one looks much better.

  • avatar

    So the new volume Mustang is gaining weight and losing power, whereas the new volume Camaro is losing weight and gaining power . . . .

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      I would expect the engine lineup to be different in the Mustang in 2016. In typical FoMoCo fashion, they’ll held over engines with minor revisions and added one that won’t be the volume engine. Look at what happened with the Mustang after its last update it 2010; two new engines in 2011. A 2.3T, 2.7T, 5.0L (direct injected or upgraded), plus a Boss and Shelby level powerplant are my expectations for the 2016 Mustang. I would also expect an automatic transmission with more than 6 speeds at some point too.

  • avatar
    Ion

    The V6 mustang is not long for this world anyway. Ford is not offering a premium trim on the 6. Anyone looking for leather or navigation will be forced into getting the turbo 4. Thus giving ford an excuse to ditch the 6 due to “low customer intrest”. It’s the same way companies are ditching manuals by tying them to base models nobody wants.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Can’t believe Ford is giving the nod to the backwards cap Cobb chip internet forum contingent, but I guess they have to follow the money. I see them pushing the V6 towards death’s door. Truthfully while I am an N/A advocate if I had to choose between the two for the Mustang I’d go with the 4. “35 MPG highway! Faster than a BMW!” The marketing writes itself. And I wouldn’t buy any Mustang without a V8. I don’t care how much HP a “Cobb Stage 3 chip puts down y0″.

  • avatar

    “Will it be like the old SVO Stang of the 1980′s, where it was the true performance option, or is it just a play for people who have a fondness for boosted 4-bangers?”

    Well it’s obviously not going to be analogous to the SVO. The SVO was faster or at least equal to the 5.0L GT back in the day. This new one will be noticeably slower.

    I don’t know what they’re going for. 30 extra lb-ft of torque over the V6 is great, but the same weight? I mean, what’s the difference going to be, really?

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      Reg; “obviously not going to be analogous to the SVO” _ Good point, but then it isn’t and SVO/SVT. Hopefully one is in the works.

      The EcoBoost should be lighter on the front end.

      The big reason for putting the emphasis on the EcoBoost, is probably the Corporate average fuel demands. While the V-8 guys hate the EcoBoost, if expected sales are what Ford wants, they will be able to keep building the GT with a V-8, but its days are numbered… count on it.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States