Should Ford offer V6 Ecoboost in Mustang?

[meyeste]

Now that GM has announced that the Gen 6 Camaro will have a 455 HP and 455 lb ft 6.2 V8 available in SS Trim,

should Ford offer a warmed over 3.6 3.5 Ecoboost V6 as something different to keep the competition guessing?

 

Thoughts......

I think there is a strong reason to keep a NA engine in them for racing series compliance reasons. I hate to say it but it seems likely the Camaro is going to dominate the Mustang bottom to top in 2016. I do believe there is a bit more room to get more power out of the 5.0L while sticking with NA. Though IMO the magnetic ride shocks being offered on the SS is actually more significant, no longer will the 1LE version be labeled a "track focused beast". Given the advantage the low end torque SS 1LE package is going to likely have over the GT350 I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1LE equipped SS running neck and neck on a tight track with the GT350. The GT350 with it's high-rev engine is more suited to professional drivers able to keep rev's up and conserve speed through corners, so you're average Joe in a GT350 is likely to get embarrassed by the SS not to mention when the performance oriented versions come out.

GM brought it with the 2016 Camaro, I am not a GM fan but have to say objectively it'd be difficult to rationalize not giving them a fair shake.

Edited May 25, 2015 by meyeste

[Fgts]

deliberately...think about it...

2.7 EB replaces 3.5 NA base model but keep it in the low trim levels and auto only as supplied to F150.

It makes for affordable base performance with auto but better economy than the 3.5 V6 it replaces

while only costing $595 more in F150....

 

The paradoxical reversal of lower engines gives competitors nowhere to go with I-4 turbo and N/A V6.

Keep your base sales V6 auto with specific options buyers want while maintaining 2.3 EB for mid trim

level so that the contrast between it and V8 is there in terms of flavor, handling and performance.

 

The problem is the n/a and fleet crowd may complain and go elsewhere also I bet the 2.7 eb isn't cheap and would probably be an upgrade from the 4 cly, something in the 370 hp range.

 

GM is fronting with the same dud line up from Cadillac 2.0T, 3.6 V6 and V8 but it's not working for buyers.

I think buyer are a bit put off by the engine line up not reflecting their preferences and product mix in the

V6 trim levels seems hard for GM to shift - Currently, over 22,000 unsold V6 Camaros in inventory.

Something I think Ford has correct with the model order thus: 3.5 V6, 2,3 EB & V8.

 

A new Camaro is months from dealers and having plenty of older models have nothing to do it?. Lets not forget manufacturers stockpile when the factory upgrade or switch location.

 

 

Ford could then add the Raptor V6 as a low cost option over the 5.0 V8 making it a value proposition

against 6.2 Camaro, with better all round performance and economy underscoring the difference.

 

That still leaves the GT350 un affected as a higher level model and its premium price in tact

And watch the prices rocket to the moon. One key reason that muscle coupes still dominate in prices over the imports is shared drivetrains from the truck lineup.

 

On a side note that's where domestic fullsize sedan and muscle coupes will do anyways to make money, shared drivetrains with pickups .

[bzcat]

 

The 2.3L EB is effectively the base model; the 3.5L is pretty much a specialty offering for a narrow subset of bargain hunters/rental agencies.

 

And because everyone missed it, I'll restate: I'm pretty sure Robert has said that there is an EB V6 on the way.

 

I don't recall that but it makes plenty of sense.

 

I think 5.0 V8 is going to stay in the Mustang in the "GT" for a long time to come. But Ford will use the EB V6s to periodically offer something that may or may not exceed 5.0 V8 in stated output.

 

Mustang is the kind of car that will constantly need "special editions" to keep up show room traffic and sales volume so I'd expect EB V6 limited editions throughout the life of the model. Also keep in mind of timing... it's likely that EB V6 Mustang will not appear until the 10 speed auto are phased in on F-150 due to engine/drivetrain/emission development needs on the F-150 - make sense that Mustang will piggy back on F-150 rather than the other way around.

 

I think we'll probably see some EB V6 models tuned to fit between 2.3 EB and 5.0 V8 and some that will exceed 5.0 V8 performance. For example...

 

2.3 EB Base 310hp/320lb-ft

>> 2.7 EB Mach 1 350hp/350lb-ft (it's 325/375 on F-150 but that is tuned for fuel economy and truck duty)

5.0 V8 GT 435hp/400lb-ft

>> 3.5 EB Boss 450hp/400lb-ft (estimated)

5.2 V8 GT350 500hp/425lb-ft (estimated)

5.2 V8 supercharged? GT500 660+hp/630+lb-ft (estimated based on where the last GT500 left off)

 

Other special edition names still on the shelf: Bullit, SVO, Cobra... you can see that Ford has a lot of options to choose from.

Edited May 26, 2015 by bzcat

[meyeste]

Call me outdated, but I think a V-8 belongs in the Mustang GT if the 5.0L can't match GM's 6.2 chuck it, get something that will. When Ford stops putting a V-8 in the GT, I'll go check out the Camaro. Realistically while sure the speed of the Mustang is awesome - a sports car

[92merc]

Call me outdated, but I think a V-8 belongs in the Mustang GT if the 5.0L can't match GM's 6.2 chuck it, get something that will. When Ford stops putting a V-8 in the GT, I'll go check out the Camaro. Realistically while sure the speed of the Mustang is awesome - a sports car

I would agree some V8 should be in the Stang. But to think that a 5.0 NA engine will match the performance of a similarly weighted vehicle that has a 6.2 NA engine, it just isn't going to happen. And I seriously doubt Ford will be putting in a V8 bigger than the 5.2. That ship has sailed, boosted vehicles is the way Ford is going.

[GT-Keith]

The Idea that the 2.7L exist in "base" trim below the 2.3L gives me cancer. I don't see it ever happening. Too much inferences is being placed on tradition when Ford has true global aspirations for the Mustang and it's future. Having said that, I do see the lineup shifting to become more "Ecoboost centric" as follows:

2.3L - 320hp (Base)($25)
2.7L - 380hp (Mid-level)($28k)
5.2L CPC & DI - 470hp (High)($33k)

The V6 can still fit in the lineup, but I don't think it needs to anymore.

[akirby]

The 5.2L FPC will be over 500 hp.

 

The 2.7B would obviously fit between the 2.3L EB and the 5.0L as a boss or mach 1. The GT500 will almost certainly have some kind of forced induction V8 with close to 600 hp unless they decide to use the GT's 3.5LEB.

[papilgee4evaeva]

I bet it blows right by 600 without looking back. The last gen had 661.

[fordmantpw]

The 5.2L FPC will be over 500 hp.

 

The 2.7B would obviously fit between the 2.3L EB and the 5.0L as a boss or mach 1. The GT500 will almost certainly have some kind of forced induction V8 with close to 600 hp unless they decide to use the GT's 3.5LEB.

 

Boss or Mach 1 should be ABOVE the GT.

[bzcat]

I bet it blows right by 600 without looking back. The last gen had 661.

 

That's the GT500, which will be back later.

 

GT350 will not have that kind of power. I'm guessing ~515 hp.

[papilgee4evaeva]

 

That's the GT500, which will be back later.

 

GT350 will not have that kind of power. I'm guessing ~515 hp.

 

akirby mentioned GT500. I was replying to his speculation.

[bzcat]

 

Boss or Mach 1 should be ABOVE the GT.

 

 

I'm no Mustang historian... but the original Mach 1 name was basically a GT but in fastback body (i.e. no Mach 1 coupe or convertible). And later on, it was mostly just a graphic package on the 71~73 Mustang and the late 70s Mustang II (e.g. you could have Mach 1 with various engine choices, including some rather slow ones). So I think it is ok to use that name for a 2.7 EB V6 model that fits between 2.3 EB and 5.0 V8.

 

The Boss name was originally tied to specific homologation engine options, not performance trim level per se as there was no "GT" during the early 70s when the original Boss 302 and 429 ruled the tracks. But there is some sentimental argument For Boss being above GT - which is why a 3.5 EB V6 with higher performance than the 5.0 V8 is perfect for the Boss name - it recalls the original Boss 302 which had higher performance than the bigger 351 and 390 V8 Mustangs.

Edited May 27, 2015 by bzcat

[jpvbs]

I hope the Mustang doesn't follow the Harley Davidson model and decide the V8 is holy and suppress a better performing forced induction V6 for the sake of tradition. Mustang has been successful by leaning forward and breaking new ground. I think it is within its character to lead the way with turbo V6s. The 5.2 FPC follows the forward thinking tradition, but by all accounts, it is going to be a limited production run.

 

Also, I'm ready for some new model designations instead of regurgitating 1960s names.

Edited May 27, 2015 by jpvbs

[bzcat]

Also, I'm ready for some new model designations instead of regurgitating 1960s names.

 

On the one hand, the reason all the pony cars are still around because babyboomers are buying them... hence all the recycled 60s names.

 

On the other hand, the future of Mustang (Camaro and Challenger too) are with younger buyers. Mustang in particular is going to carry the Ford performance flag overseas too; so it makes sense to do something new.

 

Perhaps Ford will do both.

[papilgee4evaeva]

 

On the one hand, the reason all the pony cars are still around because babyboomers are buying them... hence all the recycled 60s names.

 

On the other hand, the future of Mustang (Camaro and Challenger too) are with younger buyers. Mustang in particular is going to carry the Ford performance flag overseas too; so it makes sense to do something new.

 

Perhaps Ford will do both.

Around here -- and in many other places -- I see more young kids (read: younger than me) in Mustangs than I do their competitors. I think Ford is moving in the right direction.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

Boss or Mach 1 should be ABOVE the GT.

Above the GT mustang, yes. Above that shiny blue thing they debuted in Detroit a few months ago, probably not.

[ANTAUS]

I guess in about a years time, we can hopefully view some info to see how well the 2.3L is doing in sales. If people are choosing it over the V6. Maybe if there's a good number who are, we could see that dropping and maybe the 2.7L coming online for the 350+HP crowd.

[fordmantpw]

Above the GT mustang, yes. Above that shiny blue thing they debuted in Detroit a few months ago, probably not.

 

Oh yes, I was referring to the Mustang GT, not THE GT. Nothing should top THE GT.

[rmc523]

Do the 2.3L Mustangs have an EcoBoost badge on them?

[akirby]

 

Oh yes, I was referring to the Mustang GT, not THE GT. Nothing should top THE GT.

 

I actually thought he was talking about the GT350 for a minute.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

I actually thought he was talking about the GT350 for a minute.

Hahah! No, too much rumor and speculation about a GT500 for there not to be some fire behind that smoke.

[akirby]

Hahah! No, too much rumor and speculation about a GT500 for there not to be some fire behind that smoke.

 

I meant this comment:

 

 

Above the GT mustang, yes. Above that shiny blue thing they debuted in Detroit a few months ago, probably not.

 

I thought you were saying a mach 1 or boss would be between the GT and the GT350, which was also a shiny blue thing when it debuted albeit not at Detroit.

[akirby]

In which case I could see a mach 1 3.5EB with 450 hp in between the GT and GT350 plus a GT500 with a forced induction V8 of some kind in the 600-700 hp range.

[akirby]

Boss needs to stay 5.0L (302) but could be a tuned GT.

[RichardJensen]

I guess in about a years time, we can hopefully view some info to see how well the 2.3L is doing in sales. If people are choosing it over the V6. Maybe if there's a good number who are, we could see that dropping and maybe the 2.7L coming online for the 350+HP crowd.

 

A lot of people will be 'choosing' it over the V6 because the bulk of dealer stock and the best equipped non-GT models will be 2.3s.

 

For the same reason, you're not going to see the base 3.7L replaced with an EB 2.7L