Eco Boost 2015s - Page 2 - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Apprentice
 
Bob_Young's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Location: Lyons
Posts: 105
 
Some thoughts here:
I've bought new Fords 1971. Stuck with simple, unsophisticated versions and never had issues. Always reliable and economical vehicles (mostly F100/F150, six with stick). People who bought the high-dollar, optioned-out versions of what I drove, often had serious recurrent problems. Conclusion: Ford does simple well. Ecoboost is not simple.

A small engine like the 2.3 will be into the boost quite a bit to achieve anything approaching normal road performance in a Mustang. This is obvious, no one would buy a normally aspirated 2.3 Mustang; the car is too heavy, it would be gutless. So, being into boost a lot, economy will suffer.

The 3.5 Ecoboost they put in the trucks would be a better choice. The 3.5 is enough to push the car around in a respectable manner without getting into boost, yet the power would be there when called upon. The 3.5 Ecoboost seems like a great match for the Mustang and I can't understand why it isn't offered...other than Ford enjoys raking in the big bucks on the 5.0s.

At high elevations, boost comes into its own. NA engines lose power with altitude, boosted engines don't. If I lived around Denver or some other high altitude location, I'd be sure to go Ecoboost as that would be the only way to get an engine that could deliver its rated power. Though, I'd probably go for a tricked-out 2WD, short-cab, short-bed Ecoboost F150 before I would a 2.3 EB Mustang.

Overall, I think the 2.3 Ecoboost will be gone from the Mustang line in a few years. Too little return in either performance or economy for the extra complexity of the EB engine. It will be replaced by a 3.5 or similar V6 EB that can deliver the kind of performance Mustangs are noted for without working hard.


'13 V6 Premium Coupe, Deep Impact Blue w/pony pkg & MT82 - bone stock

I drive it like I own it.
Bob_Young is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
PONY Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
Wildcat07GT's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Tampa
Posts: 430
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob_Young View Post
Some thoughts here:
I've bought new Fords 1971. Stuck with simple, unsophisticated versions and never had issues. Always reliable and economical vehicles (mostly F100/F150, six with stick). People who bought the high-dollar, optioned-out versions of what I drove, often had serious recurrent problems. Conclusion: Ford does simple well. Ecoboost is not simple.

A small engine like the 2.3 will be into the boost quite a bit to achieve anything approaching normal road performance in a Mustang. This is obvious, no one would buy a normally aspirated 2.3 Mustang; the car is too heavy, it would be gutless. So, being into boost a lot, economy will suffer.

The 3.5 Ecoboost they put in the trucks would be a better choice. The 3.5 is enough to push the car around in a respectable manner without getting into boost, yet the power would be there when called upon. The 3.5 Ecoboost seems like a great match for the Mustang and I can't understand why it isn't offered...other than Ford enjoys raking in the big bucks on the 5.0s.

At high elevations, boost comes into its own. NA engines lose power with altitude, boosted engines don't. If I lived around Denver or some other high altitude location, I'd be sure to go Ecoboost as that would be the only way to get an engine that could deliver its rated power. Though, I'd probably go for a tricked-out 2WD, short-cab, short-bed Ecoboost F150 before I would a 2.3 EB Mustang.

Overall, I think the 2.3 Ecoboost will be gone from the Mustang line in a few years. Too little return in either performance or economy for the extra complexity of the EB engine. It will be replaced by a 3.5 or similar V6 EB that can deliver the kind of performance Mustangs are noted for without working hard.

First off, you could argue that it's easier for any car company to make a simpler car. But the problem is that there is no simple car anymore, and some of the added complexity is not by choice either. Increasing safety standards, consumer connectivity needs, and fuel economy standards are all demanding newer and more sophisticated technologies. Even subcompacts and econoboxes are now loaded with features.

Thinking that you will have to wring out the new Ecoboost motor to achieve good performance is a conclusion that doesn't really align with the facts we know so far. Car and Driver's primer on the three engines says that the Ecoboost will deliver 320 lb/ft of torque at 3000 RPM and will still be making 296 lb/ft at the peak 5500 RPM. By contrast the old 4.6 Modular makes 320 lb/ft at 4500 RPM.

So, we have a flat torque curve +

-More balanced chassis
-Much better weight distribution (52/48)
-Reduced drag

It will not be hard to make this car go fast.

Turbos have come a long way. Serious lag isn't an issue anymore, and tuning and design can produce great turbo power at high RPMs AND flat torque curves for usable low end power.

It won't be replaced any time soon. This is the future of performance cars with the new CAFE standards. Lots of forced induction 4s and some V6s. If anything, the V8 will be the motor to go in a few years, replaced by a high output V6. The CAFE requirements are going to increase year after year. No getting around it.


Current: 2015 Ford Focus SE

Former: 2007 GT, Satin Silver
Wildcat07GT is offline  
PONY Member
 
Don's Stang's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Chestnut Hill
Posts: 653
 
I have a 2011 GT, while it is now supercharged, even in stock trim was a blast to drive.

I also have a 2014 Focus ST with a Eco Boost engine. It has upgraded intercooler, intake, cat back, and a tune. While it's a fun car, and the eco boost is a good engine, don't think I would ever order a eco boost in a mustang. If you really get on it, it's a lot of fun, but on the highway, or when in higher gears, no where near the torque if the 5.0

so if I had a choice 5.0 all the way

2011 VMPcharged GT Auto, RGR/JPC Motor, Borla Touring, Alum Driveshaft, tuned by VMP [email protected]

Fired up the willing engine, responding with a roar.Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime.Wind in my hair Shifting and drifting Mechanical music Adrenaline surge - Rush -
Don's Stang is offline  
 
post #19 of 34 (permalink) Old 07-27-2014 Thread Starter
PONY Member
 
NoVa5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: Arlington
Posts: 704
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob_Young View Post
Some thoughts here:
I've bought new Fords 1971. Stuck with simple, unsophisticated versions and never had issues. Always reliable and economical vehicles (mostly F100/F150, six with stick). People who bought the high-dollar, optioned-out versions of what I drove, often had serious recurrent problems. Conclusion: Ford does simple well. Ecoboost is not simple.

A small engine like the 2.3 will be into the boost quite a bit to achieve anything approaching normal road performance in a Mustang. This is obvious, no one would buy a normally aspirated 2.3 Mustang; the car is too heavy, it would be gutless. So, being into boost a lot, economy will suffer.

The 3.5 Ecoboost they put in the trucks would be a better choice. The 3.5 is enough to push the car around in a respectable manner without getting into boost, yet the power would be there when called upon. The 3.5 Ecoboost seems like a great match for the Mustang and I can't understand why it isn't offered...other than Ford enjoys raking in the big bucks on the 5.0s.

At high elevations, boost comes into its own. NA engines lose power with altitude, boosted engines don't. If I lived around Denver or some other high altitude location, I'd be sure to go Ecoboost as that would be the only way to get an engine that could deliver its rated power. Though, I'd probably go for a tricked-out 2WD, short-cab, short-bed Ecoboost F150 before I would a 2.3 EB Mustang.

Overall, I think the 2.3 Ecoboost will be gone from the Mustang line in a few years. Too little return in either performance or economy for the extra complexity of the EB engine. It will be replaced by a 3.5 or similar V6 EB that can deliver the kind of performance Mustangs are noted for without working hard.
Ecoboost has been around for several years now, so they should have it worked out. And we're not talking 1980s/1990s turbo tech, it is very different now. Turbo engines are now making better low/mid-range power than smaller displacement V8s like Coyotes, which make their power higher up in the rev band.

I would actually expect the 2.3l turbo to actually become the enthusiast's Mustang, above the 5.0. Turbos are (usually) easier to get more power out, and their lighter weight will make for better performance, especially handling and braking. And since it will be (hopefully) rather cheap and easy to bump the 2.3s up to the 400HP area, it will probably be faster in a straight-line too.

Back in the day, SVO 2.3L turbo Mustangs were better than the "5.0" (4.9 actually) GT cars. I see a great possibility that this will happen again. And keep in mind, the 2.3l is the mid-range model, and the V6 is the bottom of the rung.

2012 GT Premium, Brembo PP, MT82, 3.73s, Blk/Blk. Bama 93R, Koni Yellow Rear Shocks, Hawk Ceramic pads, Luxurious & Plush Floor Mats
NoVa5.0 is offline  
PONY Member
5.0L Member
 
kn7671's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Arlington
Posts: 826
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob_Young View Post
Overall, I think the 2.3 Ecoboost will be gone from the Mustang line in a few years.
It's not the Turbo 4 that will be gone in a few years, but the V6. I do agree though that the 3.5L EB V6, or even the new 2.7L EB V6, would be a cool option in the Mustang.


The EcoBoost in the Mustang is a ploy to boost Ford's CAFE. The fuel used during Idle and low-speed Traffic is greatly lower from a 2.3L Turbo than the 3.7L V6 and 5.0L V8.

Ford knows that a 4cyl Mustang won't sell, not enough torque from small displacement, therefore it makes perfect sense to offer the Turbo 4 with as much power as the V6. Performance is the same or better than the V6, and even better than the V8 at low rpm's, while achieving better fuel economy than the V6.

The V6 is likely only still being offered while buyers and reviewers figure out that they aren't losing anything when choosing the Turbo 4, and to encourage buyers to choose the Turbo 4, they removed almost all the packages/options from the V6 model.

2015 Mustang GT PP 401A Black | Roush Supercharger
kn7671 is offline  
Banned
 
stevegt2012's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,226
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVa5.0 View Post
If the 2.3L motors can be bumped in power to 375 or so easily and cheaply, they might be better performing cars than the 5.0s

And it will still sound like a weed eater on steroids.....



Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
stevegt2012 is offline  
PONY Member
 
3.8LMustangV6's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Yorba Linda
Posts: 391
 
That v6 really got the shaft, can't even get a premium v6 anymore!
I have a really bad feeling the 5.0 will get replaced by a turbo 6 in the coming years!
Goodbye good sounding engines!

2001 Mustang V6 4-speed Automatic: Sold
2003 Mustang GT 5-Speed Manual: Current
Appearance Modifications: None Yet
Performance Modifications: None Yet
3.8LMustangV6 is offline  
Apprentice
 
zinc03svt's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Springfield
Posts: 232
 
Turbo's are a lot of fun. My 2013 stock SHO Taurus with just a tune ran 12.9 with 1.83 60 foot. Stock tune they are mid to high 13's. That $399 (tune and tuner) made a huge difference. The biggest help will be in catless downpipes and tunes. Probably get mid to high 300 range at the wheels very easy.

I had a 08 SRT4 Caliber making 360/370 with stock turbo, intercooler, and 02 housing off the turbo. LOL

2014 GT Cobra Jet California Special
Auto, Oxford White, comfort pkg.
zinc03svt is offline  
PONY Member
 
konabluev6's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 727
 
I love turbo cars and Ive had several turbo Volvos, my current Volvo is a V60 with a 2.0 4cyl turbo with 240 hp (it has the Ford ecoboost engine)... but for me a Mustang has to have a V8. My Volvo is quite a fast car but the 5.0 makes it feel like a snail. Nothing substitutes the V8 rumble as part of the Mustang owning experience.

And being totally honest.. the "Eco-boost" engine has nothing "eco" about it. My guess is that in real world driving conditions the eco-boost Mustang is going to have worse mpgs than the 3.7 V6.

2015 50 Anniversary Package GT
2014 Race Red Premium GT Convertible
2003 Silver GT
1981 Ford Mustang Fastback
1966 Mustang Coupe 289 4V
15 years ago 1984 Ford Mustang Hardtop
konabluev6 is offline  
PONY Member
 
3.8LMustangV6's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Yorba Linda
Posts: 391
 
I'm just so annoyed of the pricing.
V6 pretty much got the shaft and a GT premium is going to cost 40k.
Jeez

2001 Mustang V6 4-speed Automatic: Sold
2003 Mustang GT 5-Speed Manual: Current
Appearance Modifications: None Yet
Performance Modifications: None Yet
3.8LMustangV6 is offline  
post #26 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-13-2014 Thread Starter
PONY Member
 
NoVa5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: Arlington
Posts: 704
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kn7671 View Post
Ford knows that a 4cyl Mustang won't sell, not enough torque from small displacement,
Completely incorrect. The EB engines produce prodigious torque, at very low RPMs. The 2.3l EB motor in the s550 makes more torque, at a lower RPM, than the 4.6l V8s, as well as more HP. And with lighter weight, you don't need as much.

This is not to mention, that for performance driving torque is not always a "more is better" issue. The real issue is traction, getting power to the road. More torque (power) down low just means more wheel-spin off the line.

Serious super cars like 458s have very little torque (in comparison to their HP numbers), at high RPMs, and yet still manage 0-60 in 3 seconds.

2012 GT Premium, Brembo PP, MT82, 3.73s, Blk/Blk. Bama 93R, Koni Yellow Rear Shocks, Hawk Ceramic pads, Luxurious & Plush Floor Mats
NoVa5.0 is offline  
PONY Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
G-Mann's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Location: Around The Way
Posts: 503
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.8LMustangV6 View Post
That v6 really got the shaft, can't even get a premium v6 anymore!
I have a really bad feeling the 5.0 will get replaced by a turbo 6 in the coming years!
Goodbye good sounding engines!
Seems like everyone is heading in that direction.

I can see a turbo 6 being the future GT and the SVT models will get the last of the v8's.

15 F22 M235i, JB4 Stage II, Cat delete, CAI
12 GT Prem 5.0 (Sold)
G-Mann is offline  
Rookie
 
retrosix's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 48
 
the words eco boost and muscle don't belong in the same sentence hehehe
retrosix is offline  
Apprentice
 
KC3333's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: midwest
Posts: 246
 
Eco Boost 2015s

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don's Stang View Post
I have a 2011 GT, while it is now supercharged, even in stock trim was a blast to drive.



I also have a 2014 Focus ST with a Eco Boost engine. It has upgraded intercooler, intake, cat back, and a tune. While it's a fun car, and the eco boost is a good engine, don't think I would ever order a eco boost in a mustang. If you really get on it, it's a lot of fun, but on the highway, or when in higher gears, no where near the torque if the 5.0



so if I had a choice 5.0 all the way

^ This. Depends on whether you want 'peppy,' or powerful.

Personally, I'd be very worried about mods and warranty on any turbo engine. I can't imagine Ford looking the other way if you've altered boost PSI, or swapped out the turbo for an after market version. Additionally, I'd budget for the extended warranty on an EB car of any kind. Not necessarily for catastrophic failures, but even for the multitude of sensors and electronics involved. And, this EB is new for Ford.

Marrying this particular engine with a heavier convertible model means it will be a little slower than the coupe. Ford has also geared the convertibles on the weak side in the past, too.

I know you want that appearance package, but I'd be darn sure I got to drive THE model I was ordering before I ordered. Only thing worse than paying more than you feel you can afford, is not being happy with a 35k major purchase, then taking the depreciation hit to get something better.

I'm very interest in the EB myself. But, if I get one, I won't be modding the engine until I decide warranty no longer matters.

Perhaps you should focus your mods on remaking the Anniversary appearance, and getting the body and engine you want from the factory...

2012 Boss Yellow Blaze, Recaros/Torsen, Cover/Mats
2012 MCA PP Sterling/Lava
KC3333 is offline  
Apprentice
 
KC3333's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: midwest
Posts: 246
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVa5.0 View Post
Completely incorrect. The EB engines produce prodigious torque, at very low RPMs. The 2.3l EB motor in the s550 makes more torque, at a lower RPM, than the 4.6l V8s, as well as more HP. And with lighter weight, you don't need as much.



This is not to mention, that for performance driving torque is not always a "more is better" issue. The real issue is traction, getting power to the road. More torque (power) down low just means more wheel-spin off the line.



Serious super cars like 458s have very little torque (in comparison to their HP numbers), at high RPMs, and yet still manage 0-60 in 3 seconds.

AND, since you can't buy a 5 year old 4.6 in the 2015 Mustang, you'll want to compare the driving experience on the two engines on your list.


2012 Boss Yellow Blaze, Recaros/Torsen, Cover/Mats
2012 MCA PP Sterling/Lava
KC3333 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1