2015 Mustang Articles
GTR Member
Joined: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,553
Likes: 11
From: England
With most of the (non-US) competition (Audi/BMW etc) going with turbos.....the next M3 is rumoured to be a twin turbo six cylinder, it'll be nice for Ford to stick with NA 
And you're right about power not being everthing. Just as an example, the Top Gear USA test of the Roush Stage 3 and the Boss 302 had the lower powered Boss getting a much quicker time around the track. Power.....and what you can do with it in a decent chassis prove that.
And you're right about power not being everthing. Just as an example, the Top Gear USA test of the Roush Stage 3 and the Boss 302 had the lower powered Boss getting a much quicker time around the track. Power.....and what you can do with it in a decent chassis prove that.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: August 7, 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
From: Socal
Anybody offended at the idea of a 4-banger turbo Mustang pushing 250-300hp as a base model, obviously doesn't remember the awful 3.8L V6 pushing 150hp we were stuck with for 5 years! Not to mention the 4.6L V8 pushing 215hp lol. These are the glory days for sure.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: September 10, 2009
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
From: Boston
I might be biased but I think that is all the more reason for ford to go with forced induction on the base engine. When developed right (and everybody seems to think the ecoboost family of engines are) the result is more low end torque and comparable horsepower to a higher displacement NA engine while being better on fuel. win, win, win.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: August 7, 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
From: Socal
I might be biased but I think that is all the more reason for ford to go with forced induction on the base engine. When developed right (and everybody seems to think the ecoboost family of engines are) the result is more low end torque and comparable horsepower to a higher displacement NA engine while being better on fuel. win, win, win.
Last edited by jedikd; Aug 9, 2012 at 03:29 PM.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 16, 2010
Posts: 864
Likes: 2
Nothing scary about turbos. At least not factory turbos. They are actually pretty gentle on engines compared to positive displacement SC. The biggest issues with turbos is if people over rev their engine which they tend to do with turbo install. I doubt it will happen but a twin turbo V6 would be an ideal engine for my next Mustang. A friend of mine is getting 500rw torque on his eco boost F150.
A Man Just Needs Some....
Joined: April 9, 2011
Posts: 17,125
Likes: 34
From: Louisiana
Originally Posted by 908ssp
Nothing scary about turbos. At least not factory turbos. They are actually pretty gentle on engines compared to positive displacement SC. The biggest issues with turbos is if people over rev their engine which they tend to do with turbo install. I doubt it will happen but a twin turbo V6 would be an ideal engine for my next Mustang. A friend of mine is getting 500rw torque on his eco boost F150.
V6 Member
Joined: August 9, 2012
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: Calabasas
Mach 1 Member
Joined: May 24, 2010
Posts: 873
Likes: 1
From: MA
The reason I ask is because it seems the car with the must mechanical problems are turbocharge engines. Think VW, Audi, BMWs, Subaru WRX STI, Mitsubishi Evolution. Even the Porsche Turbo seems to be the most problematic. Have not heard anything about Ford Ecoboost but the engine is kind of new.
Banned
Joined: March 9, 2011
Posts: 16,242
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by 05mustangman
Yes the 4.0 was replaced with the 3.7 and gets better power and gas mileage but it's still the fact that it is still a v6 not a 4 cylinder. We all seen how the SVO went with the 4 cylinders, didn't last too long. And not talking about the 5.0 losing power talking about the 5.8. It's already been said they don't expect the new generation car to have 662 hp. So there is more than likely going to be a power drop with the 5.8 if it is continued to the new Mustang. I'm all for these cars having more power and gas mileage but dropping the v6 and going to turbo 4's might not last long again. With the 5.4 I've got I can get almost 24 MPG with over 550HP. Now that is amazing.
I still think there is a lot left in the v6 in terms of power and gas mileage. Can you imagine someone pulling up next to you in your new Mustang and asking what you got under the hood, And you say "Yea it's got a 4 cylinder", people are aren't gonna take that seriously. What happened to the Mustang being a muscle car? Now it's gas mileage this gas mileage that.
Bullitt Member
Joined: November 16, 2005
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: AZ
V6 Member
Joined: August 9, 2012
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: Calabasas
The reason I ask is because it seems the car with the must mechanical problems are turbocharge engines. Think VW, Audi, BMWs, Subaru WRX STI, Mitsubishi Evolution. Even the Porsche Turbo seems to be the most problematic. Have not heard anything about Ford Ecoboost but the engine is kind of new.
GTR Member
Joined: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,553
Likes: 11
From: England
We've owned two turbocharged cars.......first was my Z32 300zx and the turbo seals were starting to leak at 60k miles. Seems the only option was to replace them.............or sell the car. So I sold it 
Second is our currently family wagon, the Ford Galaxy turbo diesel. Bought secondhand with 150k on the clock, but we've already had to replace the turbo after if failed. That was messy. And expensive.
So, for me, turbo charged cars are great. Just ensure you factor in replacement costs further down the line. Ironically, those big costs will be when the car is worth a lot let money, so sooner or later it will not be cost effective
I chose my current daily driver (e46 BMW 330i Petrol) over the diesel equivilent as at 100k plus, the diesel's turbo WILL fail. Not if, but when.....and again, they're very expensive to replace.
So, a nice N/A 100+bhp/litre please, Ford
Second is our currently family wagon, the Ford Galaxy turbo diesel. Bought secondhand with 150k on the clock, but we've already had to replace the turbo after if failed. That was messy. And expensive.
So, for me, turbo charged cars are great. Just ensure you factor in replacement costs further down the line. Ironically, those big costs will be when the car is worth a lot let money, so sooner or later it will not be cost effective
I chose my current daily driver (e46 BMW 330i Petrol) over the diesel equivilent as at 100k plus, the diesel's turbo WILL fail. Not if, but when.....and again, they're very expensive to replace.
So, a nice N/A 100+bhp/litre please, Ford
Mach 1 Member
Joined: January 14, 2008
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
My 4.6 was 260 HP stock and a K and N filter bumped that up a hair and improved Throttle respond by a factor of 10. Don't knock the 4.6 it was great engine. I could grab in 1st,2nd and 3rd and the thing got 28 + MPG with two people and the trunk and back seat were full for a Vacation trip.
Last edited by Brewman; Aug 10, 2012 at 08:19 AM.
GTR Member
Joined: September 28, 2009
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 1
I think a realistic goal would be roughly a 88-92 hp/L for the GT, and a 115-125hp/L target for the SVT car. Keep in mind, the final engines might be smaller, so you wouldn't be talking the same figures we were with the Trinity motor.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Seems to me cooked bearings were the big problem back in the 80's attributable to using dino oil and non-water cooled turbos that baked the oil causing a coking problem in the bearings plus heat-exchangers were fancy stuff back then when it came to the pressure side of things.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: November 3, 2007
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
From: South Florida
Not sure what you're referring to here, but when you say smaller engine, Do you mean displacement?
GTR Member
Joined: September 28, 2009
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by TTS197
Not sure what you're referring to here, but when you say smaller engine, Do you mean displacement?
Post *****
Joined: December 14, 2007
Posts: 19,953
Likes: 4
From: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Yes, with synthetic oils, water cooling, and better engineering reliability is much improved compared to earlier factory efforts.
Seems to me cooked bearings were the big problem back in the 80's attributable to using dino oil and non-water cooled turbos that baked the oil causing a coking problem in the bearings plus heat-exchangers were fancy stuff back then when it came to the pressure side of things.
Seems to me cooked bearings were the big problem back in the 80's attributable to using dino oil and non-water cooled turbos that baked the oil causing a coking problem in the bearings plus heat-exchangers were fancy stuff back then when it came to the pressure side of things.