30 OTT 6 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 They released the numbers today: 2.3L EcoBoost — 310 HP / 320 LB-FT3.7L V6 — 300 HP / 280 LB-FT5.0L V8 — 435 HP / 400 LB-FT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Those are impressive numbers from the 2.3L. Looks like they dialed the 3.7L back. Isn't it 305 HP in the '14 model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 They released the numbers today: 2.3L EcoBoost — 310 HP / 320 LB-FT 3.7L V6 — 300 HP / 280 LB-FT 5.0L V8 — 435 HP / 400 LB-FT ?sure...Ford dropping 5hp from the 3.7 doesnt sound like progress to me....IMO should be 305, 335 and 450, although Ford has has a tendency recently to actually underste crank HP based on what dynos are reporting at the wheels and adjusting for losses....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Those are impressive numbers from the 2.3L. Looks like they dialed the 3.7L back. Isn't it 305 HP in the '14 model? Yep; 305hp/280 ft-lbs, per the specs on Ford's site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 5 hp is petty meaningless. I'm sure they just did it to create some separation from the 310hp rating of the 2.3. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 5 hp is petty meaningless. I'm sure they just did it to create some separation from the 310hp rating of the 2.3. My thoughts exactly. It's probably still actually rated at 305, they just publish a smaller number. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 My thoughts exactly. It's probably still actually rated at 305, they just publish a smaller number. Given the same torque rating, that seems likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Given the same torque rating, that seems likely. Unless they tuned the torque curve for peak torque at a lower rpm..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 got me wondering...will the 2.3 become , eventually, the base engine and the 3.7 go away, and then the 2.7 nano show up?.....hmmm 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 http://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/17/2015-ford-mustang-specs-435-hp/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 got me wondering...will the 2.3 become , eventually, the base engine and the 3.7 go away, and then the 2.7 nano show up?.....hmmm Given where they are positioning the 3.7L now and Ford's move to Ecoboost across the engine range I think it's only a question of when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 got me wondering...will the 2.3 become , eventually, the base engine and the 3.7 go away, and then the 2.7 nano show up?.....hmmm You beat me to it, Dean. I almost said the same on Autoblog but decided to come here first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I don't think the 2.3 will become the base because I expect it's a more expensive engine to manufacture than the 3.7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 From what I read, the original engine lineup don't include the V6. The added the 3.7L strictly for cost reasons, and to make the Mustang more affordable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang let back Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 this is a dam shame!The 50th year mustang should have had 450hp.I doubt it will beat the BOSS 302.The BOSS 302,had closer to 475hp,if not more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustangchief Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 this is a dam shame!The 50th year mustang should have had 450hp.I doubt it will beat the BOSS 302.The BOSS 302,had closer to 475hp,if not more. It was 444hp. This looks to be a flatter torque curve, and given the IRS should be a much more track-able car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I don't think the 2.3 will become the base because I expect it's a more expensive engine to manufacture than the 3.7 We're speculating that the 2.3EB would become the base once the 2.7EB became a midlevel option. Probably during a refresh. Don't quote us on that though. :reading: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I don't think the 2.3 will become the base because I expect it's a more expensive engine to manufacture than the 3.7 Unless they can kill the NA 3.5 and 3.7 altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Plus we have yet to see direct injection on the 5.0; IMHO, it will appear, maybe at re-fresh time, if only to help European sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerSooner Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Okay, so let's speculate on performance (because what's the point of all this if it isn't quick?). A 2014 Performance Pack Mustang with a 3.31, automatic and the 3.7L V6 with 300 HP / 280 LB-FT engine I've seen tested at 0-60 in 5.8 sec.; the stick was about a 1/2 second quicker. Where do we think the hottest 2.3L EcoBoost with 310 HP / 320 LB-FT will figure in? I presume with EcoBoost it will have a flatter torque curve than the 3.7L and may also be slightly lighter. 0-60 in 5.0-5.2 secs? Maybe 4.9 secs with the better weight distribution and new rear suspension? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) The 2.3 EB's 310 hp/320 lb ft is remarkably close to the past 4.6 3V's ratings - this could be very interesting. Edited July 17, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Autoblog states (referencing Ford) that the 2.3EB and D37 aren't far apart in weight at all... powertrain to powertrain, the difference is only ever a few pounds each way. Interestingly enough, the heaviest combo of that bunch is the 2.3EB with the manual. That said, I think 5 flat is attainable with the EB. And FWIW, 5.4 with the D37 auto is my guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) And wondering too whether ther will be a running change to the 3.5 DI once F150 production is up and running, perhaps Ford was forced to start with 3.7 PFI due to a production gap. I'm starting to get excited about 2.7 EB's power and torque ratings, maybe there's more shocks ahead. Edited July 17, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 ^ The plot thickens! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 More dissappointment. The whole Mustang design team,starting with Raj Nair,should be fired on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.