EB 4cyl Base Mustang

[94ranger]

Is it possible that the next gen. Mustang could have a EB I4 as its base engine? From what I've read, an Ecoboost 2.4L could produce 260hp easily. That's 50 more than the current V6. With a 4 cyl. gas mileage could be close if not over 30 mpg highway. For a "Secretary Car" i really think it would be a nice option at least.

[mustang07]

Is it possible that the next gen. Mustang could have a EB I4 as its base engine? From what I've read, an Ecoboost 2.4L could produce 260hp easily. That's 50 more than the current V6. With a 4 cyl. gas mileage could be close if not over 30 mpg highway. For a "Secretary Car" i really think it would be a nice option at least.

Hmmmm.. How about an EB V6 ?

[jonas1022]

Hmmmm.. How about an EB V6 ?

I thought that was already considered a part of the product mix for 2010 and later.

[94ranger]

I thought that was already considered a part of the product mix for 2010 and later.

I thought of the EB V6 as more of a GT and Mach1 engine depending on tune.

 

350hp for gt

390-410hp for mach 1

base gets DI V6 at about 300hp

[igor]

EB V6 will be first - EB I4 is not ready yet .. but I believe Ford wants it there ...

 

Igor

[94ranger]

EB V6 will be first - EB I4 is not ready yet .. but I believe Ford wants it there ...

 

Igor

That's what i figured. If the EB I4 does produce around 260hp it will be as powerful as the 1999-2003 GT's.

[dans07gt]

hey if the rice burners can put out mega HP in a 4 cyc. why can't Ford do the same.

[94ranger]

hey if the rice burners can put out mega HP in a 4 cyc. why can't Ford do the same.

 

The last thing the Mustang needs is to be a rice burner but a decent fuel efficient cruiser will do it well. Maybe some special exhaust to make sound less 4 cyl. like or maybe nearly silent.

[ice-capades]

The last thing the Mustang needs is to be a rice burner but a decent fuel efficient cruiser will do it well. Maybe some special exhaust to make sound less 4 cyl. like or maybe nearly silent.

 

Go back to the mid 80's when the base Mustang engine was a 4-cylinder with the V-6 and V-8's being options. The CAFE situation was so tight that Ford knew exactly how many Escorts they had to sell in order to build another Mustang GT or Crown Victoria without it affecting the CAFE balance. Most of the Dealers could count on one hand how many Mustang GT's they'd see in a Model Year. We used to joke about the fact that whatever vehicles were in short supply (Escort GT's, Mustang GT's) were usually the vehicles that all the Ford factory rep's were driving! With the new technology that is becoming available there's no reason why Ford can't or shouldn't offer a 4-cylinder Mustang as the base powertrain. Sure, most of us here are real Mustang enthusiasts so a lot of the discussions are based around the V-8 performance, etc but in the real world, Mustang GT's only account for about 40% of production which is up from 30% on the previous generation sold through the 2004 Model Year. Not everyone can afford the $5,000 price differential to move up to a GT and the CAFE situation is only going to get more important to the manufacturers with the new regulations.

[mustang6172]

I'd be perfectly content driving a Mustang with a naturally aspriated 2.5 I4. I know it's not the coolest option and some here would burn me at the stake for saying it, but I've seen $4 gas and I don't like it. The 2.5 would offer 20% better fuel mileage (a conservative estimate) with only a 40 horsepower loss (back to the levels of the 3.8 V6 from 10 years ago). That's an extra 50 miles on a tank of gas. That's before we get into the difference in weight.

[94ranger]

I'd be perfectly content driving a Mustang with a naturally aspriated 2.5 I4. I know it's not the coolest option and some here would burn me at the stake for saying it, but I've seen $4 gas and I don't like it. The 2.5 would offer 20% better fuel mileage (a conservative estimate) with only a 40 horsepower loss (back to the levels of the 3.8 V6 from 10 years ago). That's an extra 50 miles on a tank of gas. That's before we get into the difference in weight.

 

I didn't even think of a naturally aspirated I4. What's the weight difference between the 1999-2004s and the newer Mustangs? Is the 175hp that the 2.5L puts out enough to propel one efficiently? Could it even lead to a hybrid?

[kach22i]

Go 4 it.

 

Add a turbo version too.

[94ranger]

Go 4 it.

 

Add a turbo version too.

 

Turbo Hybrid? That's different. Maybe just different enough to make a difference, but then again maybe too much. Still a cool idea. Anybody know anything about the Coyote 5.0L V8?

[StevenCaylor]

Turbo Hybrid? That's different. Maybe just different enough to make a difference, but then again maybe too much. Still a cool idea. Anybody know anything about the Coyote 5.0L V8?

 

I talked with quite a few of the Mustang engineers at the 2010 reveal, telling them some of our wants and wishes for future Mustangs. They were VERY tightlipped when it came to drivetrain changes. I noticed that all the V6 Mustangs had Z-rated rubber and asked if they were going to change the speed limiter. They said no as that the limiter was there because the V6 has a single piece driveshaft and opposed to the V8s two piece unit.

[mustang6172]

I didn't even think of a naturally aspirated I4. What's the weight difference between the 1999-2004s and the newer Mustangs? Is the 175hp that the 2.5L puts out enough to propel one efficiently? Could it even lead to a hybrid?

 

The 1999 Mustang weiged 3375 lbs and the 2009 weighs 3352 lbs

 

A 2.5L Mustang would have about 19 pounds per horsepower while the 2.3L Focus has 18 lbs per horsepower. But the Mustang would have a slight edge in torque per hosepower.

 

A variable valve timing system could be added to the 2.5L engine to improve the performance against the Focus.

[ehaase]

I think a 200 hp normally aspirated 2.5L DI 4 cylinder would make a nice base Mustang engine.

[94ranger]

I think a 200 hp normally aspirated 2.5L DI 4 cylinder would make a nice base Mustang engine.

How much would this all cost. A DI 4 cyl. or an EB 4 cyl. would cost way more than the ancient 4.0 v6. Would the base price with a DI or EB 2.5 be too high? Under $21K since a 300hp Camaro starts at like $23K.f

[OHV 16V]

I don't think a regular 4-cylinder would work out that well from an image standpoint. Those cars aren't held in high regard in many Mustang circles that I know of. Now, as 94ranger points out, as long as cost is kept under control, what about a turbo 4? Not the full-on, blazin' EcoBoost version, but what about using some old Volvo technology and producing a "light-pressure" turbo 4 that makes in the window of 225hp? I could easily see this being a great base engine that has great CAFE potential. Match the Camaro with a DI 3.5(7?)-liter V6, then of course, we have the 5.0-liter for the GT.

 

Truth be told, I'd much rather see the return of a full-powered turbo 4 badged as the new SVO than see a turbo V6 like the one coming. What trim level will the turbo V6 be available in? The GT should always have 8 cylinders, period. Just my humble opinion, but, like everyone else, I believe I'm entitled to it.

[94ranger]

I don't think a regular 4-cylinder would work out that well from an image standpoint. Those cars aren't held in high regard in many Mustang circles that I know of. Now, as 94ranger points out, as long as cost is kept under control, what about a turbo 4? Not the full-on, blazin' EcoBoost version, but what about using some old Volvo technology and producing a "light-pressure" turbo 4 that makes in the window of 225hp? I could easily see this being a great base engine that has great CAFE potential. Match the Camaro with a DI 3.5(7?)-liter V6, then of course, we have the 5.0-liter for the GT.

 

Truth be told, I'd much rather see the return of a full-powered turbo 4 badged as the new SVO than see a turbo V6 like the one coming. What trim level will the turbo V6 be available in? The GT should always have 8 cylinders, period. Just my humble opinion, but, like everyone else, I believe I'm entitled to it.

 

I agree that a V8 should still be a choice for powering the GT but why not offer the EB V6 as well. Have both engines as options because from what i hear, there are more engines in the upcoming Mustang lineup than there has been in my lifetime (1989-).

[StevenCaylor]

I agree that a V8 should still be a choice for powering the GT but why not offer the EB V6 as well. Have both engines as options because from what i hear, there are more engines in the upcoming Mustang lineup than there has been in my lifetime (1989-).

 

Lineup I'd like to see

 

Mustang - 3.5 Duratec standard, 2.5 Ecoboost optional

 

Mustang GT - new 5.0 standard, 3.5 Ecoboost optional

 

Mustang GT500 - 5.0 Ecoboost

 

All with either 6 speed manuals or autos

 

Yeah, I remember the 69 Mustang. Nine different engines available with 3 speed manual or auto and two different 4 speed manuals with axle ratios ranging from 2.75 to 4.11

[94ranger]

Lineup I'd like to see

 

Mustang - 3.5 Duratec standard, 2.5 Ecoboost optional

 

Mustang GT - new 5.0 standard, 3.5 Ecoboost optional

 

Mustang GT500 - 5.0 Ecoboost

 

All with either 6 speed manuals or autos

 

Yeah, I remember the 69 Mustang. Nine different engines available with 3 speed manual or auto and two different 4 speed manuals with axle ratios ranging from 2.75 to 4.11

 

Here's my thoughts on the lineup.

 

Mustang: 2.5 Ecoboost standard (260Hp), 3.5 DI Duratec Optional (300+hp)

GT: 3.5L Ecoboost (360?hp) or 5.0 standard (400?hp) (more of a pick your poison deal)

Mach 1: 3.5L Ecoboost (415hp) (better tuning or turbos) or better tuned 5.0 v8(425hp)

Gt 500: 5.0 Twin turbo (550hp)(not ecoboost because at this point there is no eco about it)

[Rob O.]

I'd be perfectly content driving a Mustang with a naturally aspriated 2.5 I4. I know it's not the coolest option and some here would burn me at the stake for saying it, but I've seen $4 gas and I don't like it. The 2.5 would offer 20% better fuel mileage (a conservative estimate) with only a 40 horsepower loss (back to the levels of the 3.8 V6 from 10 years ago). That's an extra 50 miles on a tank of gas. That's before we get into the difference in weight.

I'd be content with a 4 cyl. Mustang as long as it has some power to it--I remember the SVO's and really liked them but since it was my first Mustang I decided I wanted a GT instead. Most of my driving is local anyway so I really don't need the big V-8. I've got an 05 V-6 now & really enjoy it (got it up to 80 coming home from the dealership ). I think the 4 cyl. supercharged/turbocharged version would be a good model as long as the engine/drivetrain were up to the task...build it for a couple of years & see if it catches on.

[mustang6172]

I don't think a regular 4-cylinder would work out that well from an image standpoint. Those cars aren't held in high regard in many Mustang circles that I know of. Now, as 94ranger points out, as long as cost is kept under control, what about a turbo 4? Not the full-on, blazin' EcoBoost version, but what about using some old Volvo technology and producing a "light-pressure" turbo 4 that makes in the window of 225hp? I could easily see this being a great base engine that has great CAFE potential. Match the Camaro with a DI 3.5(7?)-liter V6, then of course, we have the 5.0-liter for the GT.

 

Truth be told, I'd much rather see the return of a full-powered turbo 4 badged as the new SVO than see a turbo V6 like the one coming. What trim level will the turbo V6 be available in? The GT should always have 8 cylinders, period. Just my humble opinion, but, like everyone else, I believe I'm entitled to it.

 

Well if it's image you're worried about, we might as well dump the V6. A slow V8 somehow demands more respect than a fast V6.

 

This Volvo talk gives me an idea. How about using the 2.5L I-5 Volvo makes? It's got 227 horsepower and 236 lb-ft of torque. It gets 19mpg city (automatic trans only) in the V50 which weighs about the same as a Mustang. With these numbers, a 5 cylinder Mustang is just crazy enough to work!

 

Of course if it won't mate with one of Ford's transmissions, it's really a moot point.

[94ranger]

Well if it's image you're worried about, we might as well dump the V6. A slow V8 somehow demands more respect than a fast V6.

 

This Volvo talk gives me an idea. How about using the 2.5L I-5 Volvo makes? It's got 227 horsepower and 236 lb-ft of torque. It gets 19mpg city (automatic trans only) in the V50 which weighs about the same as a Mustang. With these numbers, a 5 cylinder Mustang is just crazy enough to work!

 

Of course if it won't mate with one of Ford's transmissions, it's really a moot point.

 

Isn't it a turbo anyway? The new 2.5 I4 with a turbo will make close to that and should get better gas mileage and cost less.