Deanh 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. meh, im not dis-appointed at all really, sure, HP could be more extreme, and perhaps #s are conservative, but get too extreme and Insurance costs enter the foray along with parents questioning the wisdom of putting Biff in an overly powerful vehicle...remember these are just the meat and potatoes Mustangs ( if you can call 435 hp mainstream 0...Im curious about the more extreme variants in the works...that should satisfy ALL potential buyers..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 In other news, there's a camo Camaro posted on Autoblog, so lets see what the compeittion does that will force Ford to improve the Mustang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 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...
sullynd Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 perhaps Ford was forced to start with 3.7 PFI due to a production gap. Transit is using 3.7 too, which seems odd. MkZ still uses it too, though I could see it getting 2.7EB instead of 3.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 More dissappointment. The whole Mustang design team,starting with Raj Nair,should be fired on the spot. How could you possibly be disappointed with these numbers from regular production models? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 More dissappointment. The whole Mustang design team,starting with Raj Nair,should be fired on the spot. That's very creative. Do you have any specific points about this, or was this a non-specific spasm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 What is there to be disappointed about? Did anyone expect a 400 hp Ecoboost 2.3 or the Coyote suddenly making 550hp? These are all solid numbers that are competitiive and on a lightweight chassis (compared to the competition). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 If those horsepower and torque ratings are based on 93 octane, I wonder what the ratings will be for cars sold in California (max 91 octane). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 If those horsepower and torque ratings are based on 93 octane, I wonder what the ratings will be for cars sold in California (max 91 octane). Someone can check me on this, but I think Ford only rates the EB engines differently depending on the grade of gas. I've never seen the D37 rated any differently based on octane, just on application. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) Someone can check me on this, but I think Ford only rates the EB engines differently depending on the grade of gas. I've never seen the D37 rated any differently based on octane, just on application. I think the D37 in the Lincolns is rated differently based on octane; I'd be surprised if it were different in the Fords. And I'm pretty sure that they define premium as 91+ (at least, they did on my Lincoln). ETA: I just checked the 2014 Mustang specs, and the Coyote's power/torque ratings specifically note 93 octane. Edited July 18, 2014 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 If those horsepower and torque ratings are based on 93 octane, I wonder what the ratings will be for cars sold in California (max 91 octane). You guys just have crappy gas out there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 You guys just have crappy gas out there.... I may only have 91, but at least I have 100% gasoline. Ethanol is for drinkin', not drivin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 In 1985 I had a Mustang GT, 225 HP rating, and it was pretty fast. Today 435 HP and people say it's not enough? I guess there is always room for more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) I think the D37 in the Lincolns is rated differently based on octane; I'd be surprised if it were different in the Fords. And I'm pretty sure that they define premium as 91+ (at least, they did on my Lincoln). ETA: I just checked the 2014 Mustang specs, and the Coyote's power/torque ratings specifically note 93 octane. The D37s power and torque figures were done with regular gas, not 93. n While Ford performs its tests on Coyote and EB 23 using 93, I'm pretty sure there's enough margin there so that 91 would give similar results. The whole point is not to expect that power with 87 gas. I wonder what the power figures are like with the track key activated...or does that affect other parameters. Edited July 18, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I may only have 91, but at least I have 100% gasoline. Ethanol is for drinkin', not drivin'. I've read/seen complaints about people in So Cal and the Southwest about 91 octane not even being rated that high and having issues with tuned Ecoboost engines with pinging and what not. I never had a problem with gas on the east coast besides stations saying they had 93 octane when it was only 92 (I have a 93 tune on my SHO and wasn't running right on it) and Sunonco 93 works great and had no issues since I switched to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 http://kinja.roadandtrack.com/why-the-new-ford-mustang-should-go-race-at-le-mans-1607211753 Nice illustration. Why the new Ford Mustang should go race at Le Mans 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I have no idea whether it would make financial sense but I LOVE IT!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 and theres a hubba hubba from me as well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I have no idea whether it would make financial sense but I LOVE IT!!!!!!! Wait, akirby, did you hit your head or something? You actually LOVE a race car that doesn't make financial sense? Hell must be freezing over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I like racing. Never said I didn't. I even watch Nascar sometimes. These are my rules: 1. Racing doesn't sell regular cars 2. Don't call a purpose built race car a stock car (NASCAR, NHRA) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I like racing. Never said I didn't. I even watch Nascar sometimes. These are my rules: 1. Racing doesn't sell regular cars 2. Don't call a purpose built race car a stock car (NASCAR, NHRA) You should actually GO to a race someday instead of watching it on TV. It's a whole different experience being there live. "1. Racing doesn't sell regular cars" ..... But it does help improve production cars. "2. Don't call a purpose built race car a stock car (NASCAR, NHRA)"..... The name "Stock Car" is from the old days when they were pretty much stock and it just stuck. They do call them Race cars, Hotrods, and Junk today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Racing improving street cars today is rare outside of exotics. What I meant by stock is don't call a NASCAR or NHRA car by a stock name like Fusion or Camry or Mustang or Camaro. I prefer series that use real cars like IMSA sanctioned Tudor and continental sports car series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Unless they tuned the torque curve for peak torque at a lower rpm..... Winner winner chicken dinner! the V-6 makes 300 horsepower at 6500 rpm and 280 lb-ft at 4000 rpm. Compared with the 2014’s 3.7, the torque peak is 250 rpm lower and max power is down by five ponies. For all intents and purposes, this engine is unchanged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 http://blog.caranddriver.com/2015-ford-mustang-everything-you-need-to-know-about-its-v-6-v-8-and-ecoboost-engines/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 thankyou Mr Kirby, that was good reading...and loved THIS snippet...forged steel crankshaft and connecting rods. Mahle pistons bolstered with steel piston-ring carriers allow for increased compression....sounds like a tough little unit 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.