Ford Mustang Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have never owned a Mustang before so I have been doing a ton of research on which model I should buy. The 13/14 models look better than the newer ones to me, but they typically have more miles on them because they're older. I'm looking at the V6 models for those, I don't think the V8 would be practical for my daily driver. The 15-17 models are also in my price range (12K-19K) with the 4 cylinder EcoBoost. I have read so many arguments to both sides. People with the EB seem to love them, but the V6 is tried and true. Also the 15 model does come in V6 also, so that's another question I have considered, because it has both options. I like the muscle car look of the 13/14, whereas the 15-17 do look awesome, but more of a sport car than muscle. But then again, I am not getting a V8, so it is not a true muscle car anyways. Where does everyone stand on this between the V6 or 4 cylinder turbo? It is an automatic, I want to learn how to drive a manual, but I won't spend that much money for a car I technically don't know how to drive yet. Hopefully this is the right section, I will post in the S197 forum as well
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
The 4cyl turbo has a power advantage over the v6 and can get better gas mileage than the v6 when driven conservatively. The turbo motor is easier and cheaper to mod for significant power gains.

The biggest disadvantage to the v6 in the S550 Mustang is Ford limited the options you could get. Things like leather, the Sync infotainment system, the performance package, dual zone heat, hested/cooled seats were not available on the v6.

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,045 Posts
why do you think a V8 would not be practical as a daily driver?
 
  • Like
Reactions: my89foxbody

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,826 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,826 Posts
I as well, even in the winter just not when it snows, those are my work from home days
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
If you don't mind taking the gas mileage hit there is no reason not to drive a v8 Mustang daily.

I have an 17 Ecoboost Mustang and a friend of mine has a 15 GT. We both drive in the same area and experience the same traffic and we have similar driving styles. He gets 15 to 18 mpg around town and i get 26 to 29 mpg. On the hiway it is closer, he gets 24 to 26 mpg and i get 29 to 32 mpg.



Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I’d love a V8, but it would cost more on gas. I’ve also never driven stick. I’d love to learn, but I don’t think it’s a good decision to spend that much on a car I don’t actually know how to drive yet. And as an everyday driver, I assumed because of the power behind a V8, the parts would wear out faster. I’d like to have a car that will last 160-200K miles. Maybe my assumptions are wrong though?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,045 Posts
not really "wrong" but probably not as bad as you think . . . gas mileage is not that big a difference if you keep your foot out of it; naturally aspirated V8 is less complex than turbo-charged 4; maybe a little more wear and tear but not a big deal, probably biggest difference is the price . . . I would not disqualify a V8 for any of those reasons

if you do want to learn to drive a manual, it is actually easier with a V8 due to the low end torque, less likely to stall

if you are most concerned about reliability I would probably avoid the turbocharged 4, stick with the naturally aspirated V6 or V8
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
; naturally aspirated V8 is less complex than turbo-charged 4;

if you are most concerned about reliability I would probably avoid the turbocharged 4, stick with the naturally aspirated V6 or V8
???????

Comparing a Coyote v8 to a 2.3 Ecoboost; the v8 has twice as many pistons, connecting rods, valves, cam shafts, fuel injectors and a much more complicated cam drive. The Ecoboost has a turbo which has one moving part.

A duel overhead cam v8 is way more complex.

Assuming Ford got it right and all the moving parts individually have the same reliability the Turbo 4 is going to be twice as reliable because it has 1/2 the number of moving parts.

I have been driving turbo charged 4cyl cars as my daily drivers since 1985. In that time i have accumulated over 800,000 miles on them. With a couple going to the mid 200,000 miles and all but the last two (one lost to an accident and miles still racking up on the second) all the others went well over 100,000 miles before retiring them. I never experienced an internal engine or a turbo failure.


Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Let's keep the focus on the fact he asked about our opinions between a V6 and the 4 cylinder turbo. He made it clear that he doesn't want a 5.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,045 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I'd go for 15-17 4 cylinder.
S550 is probably the most beautiful Mustang generation (both exterior and interior).
In terms of power, EcoBoost produces enough power (310hp 320lb) with low mpg (21/32)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
3.7 V6 is more reliable when modded both NA and FI then then the ecoboom is. That is fact.

My 3.7 2013 car was FBO, suspension, geared (geared from 3.31 3.73 and 4.10), tuned since 1500 miles new.
Then it had a single turbo BW custom setup in 2015 (3.31 gears) and made 426 whp, 416 wtq on 8 psi 93 octane.
I then sold that kit (for what I had in it) and went back NA, with same tuning company till 2020.
I just went twin turbo at the beginning of this year (3.55 gears) on 93 octane using same tune company (haven’t made it to dyno yet).
All this on my stock internal 3.7 motor from 2013.

Hands down if your going to mod the car the 3.7 V6 is far more reliable and while is low on power NA, makes up for it pretty good modded. The 3.7 will also make more power then a 2.3 ecoboost if you go FI on the stock 3.7 engine with less boost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
???????

Comparing a Coyote v8 to a 2.3 Ecoboost; the v8 has twice as many pistons, connecting rods, valves, cam shafts, fuel injectors and a much more complicated cam drive. The Ecoboost has a turbo which has one moving part.

A duel overhead cam v8 is way more complex.

Assuming Ford got it right and all the moving parts individually have the same reliability the Turbo 4 is going to be twice as reliable because it has 1/2 the number of moving parts.

I have been driving turbo charged 4cyl cars as my daily drivers since 1985. In that time i have accumulated over 800,000 miles on them. With a couple going to the mid 200,000 miles and all but the last two (one lost to an accident and miles still racking up on the second) all the others went well over 100,000 miles before retiring them. I never experienced an internal engine or a turbo failure.


Dave
Less complex?? You mean besides the timing and A/F being way more critical due to boost.
Besides possible boost leaks. Besides extra hardware of turbo, WG, intercooler, boost controller,
and intake pluming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Less complex?? You mean besides the timing and A/F being way more critical due to boost.

Besides possible boost leaks. Besides extra hardware of turbo, WG, intercooler, boost controller,

and intake pluming.
Absolutely a 2.3 Ecoboost is less complex than a Coyote v8.

You can destroy a naturally aspirated engine just as fast as a boosted engine if the timing or A/F ratio gets out of whack. The design architecture of the Coyote and Ecoboost ECUs are the same (that's why you can use the same hand held tuner to modify them) and i am going to say the reliability of both ECUs are the same. But the v8 has twice as many spark plugs that the ECU has to control and twice (or in the case of the Gen3 Coyote 4 times) as many fuel injectors to control. Complexity advantage goes to the Evoboost.

Boost leak / vacuum leak are equally detrimental to the proper operation of an engine. The number of joints that could contribute to a boost or vacuum leak is equivalent between the Coyote and Ecoboost making the complexity between the two the same.

I had mentioned the turbo with its one moving part but did not mention the waste gate with its one moving part or the intercooler with no moving parts. The boost controller is part of the ECU. But none of those items add enough complexity to even come close the extra pistons, valves, cam shafts, fuel injectors and variable cam timing hardware the Coyote has compared to the 2.3 Ecoboost. I will say it again the Coyote v8 is a much more complex engine than a 2.3 Ecoboost engine.

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,045 Posts
I still have a hard time accepting that boosted engines are more reliable than normally aspirated; regardless of parts count. The whole purpose of boosting is to shove more air/fuel mix into a smaller cylinder; making more power from a smaller space on smaller and lighter components; which has to increase the stress on those components.

They also generate heat and create new control issues that the N/A engine does not have. Atmospheric pressure does not need to be controlled and can't go too high if the controls fail. You don't have to get rid of the extra heat if you don't generate it in the first place.

I've never heard of a Coyote destroying itself by ingesting its turbo, but ecoboosts do that sometimes.

Anyway, it's a personal preference thing, but if I want a reliable engine, I'm going N/A.

If not to produce more power with a smaller and lighter engine (which has to increase the stresses, both mechanical and thermal, on that engine) then what IS the point of forced induction?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
I still have a hard time accepting that boosted engines are more reliable than normally aspirated;
They aren't. Once every 3-4 weeks or so someone chimes in about a hose popping off on the Fusion Sport board. Many have had the intake hose
that connects to the throttle body pop off, and they never touched it. Most don't road race a FI car for many of the reasons you quote, heat soak
being a huge issue that is much easier to control on NA engines. A/F and especially timing is more critical on FI engines.

Doesn't mean I don't love turbos. Put a Cartech kit on my Capri in 94ish timeframe, when most of the world was running Vortech's.
(only reason I'm not twins on my 14, is being a lib controlled state, I figured @ any time they might go back to visual inspection which
the Roush should pass). I'm also on my 4th ECO and currently own 2. The 2.7 is an awesome engine, but it's silly to
think all that stuff going on is going to be as long term reliable as a stock coyote. Especially since many tune turbo motors
to put out much more power than stock, whereas a coyote tune gets you 15ish HP (if that).

Ford also now advertises no loss in torque for 87 gas for ECO's (except 3.5 HO). Good article here on ECO's, but the price you pay
for 87 is listed in the last sentence here (whereas there is almost no difference on 87 with a coyote, especially pre-18).

"Figure 41 shows the ignition timing for both fuels for the UDDS, the Highway and the US06 cycles.
At higher absolute engine loads the spark timing for the 93 AKI fuel is more advanced enabling the
engine to operate closer to the maximum brake torque combustion conditions. For the
lower octane fuel the spark ignition timing is retarded at these higher loads to prevent engine
knocking from occurring. The vertical axis in these figures is absolute engine load as reported by
the powertrain controller that is different than mechanical torque output from the engine. Overall
the lower octane fuel resulted in higher engine speeds and higher boost levels to compensate for
the lower mechanical torque."

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812520.pdf
Pg 56

As for the original topic, I've been looking for an 11-17 V6 vert. The prices on the 15+ have come down enough that I have started to narrow
my search on them instead. Mostly for the IRS and upgraded interior. I specifically don't want an EB as the V6 is plenty
for the woman, and then I won't be tempted to tune it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
I still have a hard time accepting that boosted engines are more reliable than normally aspirated; regardless of parts count. The whole purpose of boosting is to shove more air/fuel mix into a smaller cylinder; making more power from a smaller space on smaller and lighter components; which has to increase the stress on those components.



They also generate heat and create new control issues that the N/A engine does not have. Atmospheric pressure does not need to be controlled and can't go too high if the controls fail. You don't have to get rid of the extra heat if you don't generate it in the first place.



I've never heard of a Coyote destroying itself by ingesting its turbo, but ecoboosts do that sometimes.



Anyway, it's a personal preference thing, but if I want a reliable engine, I'm going N/A.



If not to produce more power with a smaller and lighter engine (which has to increase the stresses, both mechanical and thermal, on that engine) then what IS the point of forced induction?
Well the first thing you learn in reliability engineering is the fastest way to improving reliability is to reduce the parts count.

I absolutely agree that you are shoving more air and fuel into the engine with a turbo but as long as the engine is designed correctly it doesn't make a difference. Just because the parts are smaller and lighter does not mean they are weaker or less reliable.

It takes a certain amount of air/fuel to produce a level of HP whether it is a small displacement turbo 4 or a large displacement NA v8. Within reason all internal combustion engines are approximately 20% efficient at converting the potential energy in a gallon of gas in to thermal energy that can move the pistons up and down. The rest either goes out the exhaust or is absorbed by the cooling system. What this means is a 300 HP v8 and a 300 HP turbo 4 are going to have the same amount of wasted heat energy.

Of course i have never heard of a Coyote ingesting a turbo but i have heard of plenty of them destroying themselves by eating a cam gear or oil pump. No man made product is 100% reliable and i don't know how prevalent the cam gear and oil pump failures are nor do i know how prevalent turbo failures are with a turbo 4 other than my own experience. In my 35 years and ~800k miles of driving turbo 4s i have never had a turbo failure or an internal engine failure. That is pretty darn reliable in my book.

There are lots of good reasons to choose a v8 over a turbo 4 but to say the v8, especially the Coyote, is less complex is not valid.



Dave
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top