cfraser

Some of us purposely moved away from TC 4-cyls to a NA V6. Those of us who keep cars, and are very familiar with day-to-day differences of driving a V6 vs a 4...we're not racing here! Wait until you get your first TC repair/maintenance bills, even with a proven design in a proven app.

As far as I can tell, Ford grossly overstates their vehicle mileage, least by Canadian standards, it's not even close to reality. Probably other brands too, I haven't been paying attention and live surrounded by Fords of all types. IOW they're a comparative guide when shopping, not a real measure.

Boss 0960

The Ecoboost power numbers are out (in the links in the media thread). Max torque hits at 3200 rpm and is all over by 5200 rpm. That 2000 rpm torque band seems very narrow to me. I would have expected from all the prognostications that the max torque would come in in the low 2000 rpm range and remain flat to 5200 rpm. Not to mention that this motor is all done by 5200 rpm anyway.

I am obviously not an Ecoboost fan but I did have an expectation of what the dyno graph might look like. The narrow torque band and fall off of power at 5200 rpm is much less impressive than I expected. No wonder that Ford needs to limit V6 option packs, reduce V6 horsepower and lower V6 MPG to make the Ecoboost look better. It's underwhelming by the numbers and shape of the dyno graph.

Edit: the 3.7L in my F-150 shrieks up to 7200 rpm and is obviously still making power up to that point. It is a sweet and satisfying sound, hearing the 3.7L spinning above 6000 rpm. I don't need max torque cruising around the city in my daily life and I don't usually need more than 1/8th of the gas pedal to move nicely around town. I rarely hit 3000 rpm (where the Ecoboost hits it's torque peak). But when push comes to shove, I will take that extra 2000 rpm on the top end after the Ecoboost has spiraled.

White2010

Guess what happens to that 310 hp rating then?

White2010

I just looked at the performance numbers on the ecoboost. FAIL!

It's a staggering .2 seconds quicker that the outgoing V6 and to achieve that you must use 93 octane. Heck with a margin of .2 that means on the streets these two cars are pretty much dead even. But guess which one you have to pay more money for?

Heck depending on who's numbers you believe the current 2014 V6 in some tests is actually quicker than the ecoboost. This car is all hype.

2k7gtcs

What all this means to me is that it will take an S550 SVT model for me to even think about getting a new Mustang.


Which was probably gonna be the case already anyway.

cdynaco

What happened to the mantra "torque gets you going, horsepower keeps you going..."?

And your V6 does not hit peak torque as low as 3k does it? So since you rarely hit 3k, you are no where near peak torque with the 3.7L correct? So I don't understand your point here.

cdynaco

I was thinking the same thing for the S550 GT vs the S197 GT & Boss...
All this IRS rah rah, extra expense, added weight, for a few hundredths? On a street car?

Rodsmustang

The eco-boost lovers are having a tough time with the facts here!!!

laserred38

But that was always my plan anyways...house then trade the GT for an SVT.

newpony

The main problem with the Ecoboost is that it has 4 cylinders. I'm pretty sure it is going to be a hit with tuners but…still has four cylinders.

White2010

You must get some seat time in V6 cdy. It will hit 3000 rpm very easily. I would have to really grandma mine to keep it from hitting 3000 rpm even under normal acceleration.

cdynaco

No doubt it will hit 3k easily.
But I took 0960's point that he rarely gets to 3k (in traffic?), if I understand him correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boss 0960

Edit: the 3.7L in my F-150....
I don't need max torque cruising around the city in my daily life and I don't usually need more than 1/8th of the gas pedal to move nicely around town. I rarely hit 3000 rpm (where the Ecoboost hits it's torque peak).

So the eco-boost will get him closer to max torque than his present 3.7LV6 where he has to get to 4k.

F150: Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm) 278 @ 4000 rpm

Mustang: TORQUE 280 ft-lbs. @ 4250 rpm

Boss 0960

That's exactly my point. In my everyday driving needs, I don't need peak torque. That's supposed to be the Ecoboost's big selling point but it's exactly the thing that I don't need when going to work or casually cruising around town.

When I want power, it's going up an on-ramp to freeway speed. I'm already in the rev band, I just need to keep going. In this case, I definitely prefer the extra 2000 rpm power band on the top end of the 3.7L where the Ecoboost will fizzle at 5200. With a manual trans in this Ecoboost, having to short shift at 5200 rpm to stay in the power band is going to be a lot of extra shifting. One of the media reviews even says that there is a case to be made for short shifting the Ecoboost due to the lack of power at high rpm.

cdynaco

I understand your point now. Thanx.

I read that about short shifting to stay in the torque range. Makes me think diesel.

Curious if the power band can be manipulated because normally turbo's excel at the top end whereas this one falls off.

That being said, these cars are so fast now that to play near peak hp at the high rpm's its really easy to lose your license. Whereas more torque in the low/mid range can be a lot of fun without being at 100+mph.

Boss 0960

That is kind of my point in this thread. We're looking at an excellent 305hp V6 that doesn't need to be revved to high rpm to move out nicely. That's formerly SVT Cobra territory and a mod is asking if it should die. Ecoboost fans are suggesting that those who prefer this excellent V6 should have that choice taken away from them. Ford is certainly doing it's best to drive buyers away from the V6 into the Ecoboost according to it's own corporate agenda.

Yet I don't see any advantages to the Ecoboost over the V6 for my use, i.e. in a summer cruising convertible for me and my wife. I see added complexity and cost over an existing engine that I already know is a great little engine. That and I don't believe real world Ecoboost fuel mileage will meet the expectations that have been set. The increasingly marginal performance benefits of the Ecoboost are mooted by the fact that both of these small engines can be a license loser if you push them too hard. I already have a license loser with the Boss 302. I'm not looking for another one.

One other point that just became clear to me in the last few posts is that because I don't tend to drive my vehicles very hard, that does not bode well for the long term reliability of a DI engine like the Ecoboost (carbon build up). I am still convinced that the V6 is the right engine for my next convertible's purpose. I've already had three V6 convertibles, SN95, New Edge and S197. The V6 engines keep getting better, especially the 3.7L. I just need to get it with a Premium interior. I won't be buying this year or next so maybe Ford will get the message by the time I'm ready to buy and allow that combination. Or they will kill the V6 and lose me completely.

White2010

I tend to agree. If Ford drops the V6 from the Mustang in favor of pushing their precious ecoboost I'm gone as a customer. I've owned both a GT and two V6s and for my money the current 3.7 V6 is the ideal daily driver Mustang. It gives decent mpg with good performance and I don't have to worry about the cost of maintaining or repairing a turbo-charged engine down the line. I'm not opposed to the 4 cylinder based on some "It's a four banger and four bangers are bad," nonsense. I'm opposed to this particular 4 banger because it just doesn't deliver on all the hype with respect to both performance or mpg. It is basically the same performance level as the 2014 V6 but with the added cost of having to use premium fuel to get that level of performance. It's not an improvement in other words. If Ford drops the V6 I guess my next performance car purchase might have a bow tie on it.

Palerider

EPA will have an effect on 'fleet economy' NOT this sports car's engine offerings.
Dodge can build the Viper and Chevy the Z06/Z28 by compensating with their other vehicles to satisfy the fleet average figures. To think the EPA would point a finger at any particular car and demand a change is a bit Orwellian.
The "tuning shops" have always taken the most powerful engine offerings and added 'tuned' from that best potential. To say the focus will now be on already maxed out small displacement 4i motors is not a rational conclusion

AWmustang

If the ST is any indication it doesn't change. Peak torque is slightly lower and the entire torque curve is lower. I can tell the difference in my ST, but the point was if you are that concerned over the Premium gas you have the option to use regular. I didn't say there were no consequences, just that it wouldn't cause damage.

The GT is also rated using premium but no one seems up in arms about that.

White2010

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth and I'm not looking to get some sort of stupid internet argument started with you. I'm just disappointed in Ford and I could see this coming months ago. The good thing about getting older is that your BS meter gets a lot more fine tuned and my BS meter with this car was starting to ping quite awhile ago. The bad thing about getting older is that you realize there is a lot more BS out there then there is genuine articles.

So for me the red flags went up when Ford started touting the ecoboost horsepower numbers and yet there was no mention of the average mpg despite the fact that they touted the ecoboost as both fuel efficient and a great performer. Low and behold when the mpg numbers did come out the ecoboost wasn't any better than the V6 car by and large. What a couple mpg here and there? Big freakin whoop. And I guess it's just a coincidence that the mpg for the V6 went down along with the hp ratings? Couldn't have anything to do with Ford wanting to push the ecoboost could it? Naaaaa couldn't be. Then Ford decided they wouldn't offer the better options in the V6, just the ecoboost. Couldn't be because Ford is pushing the ecoboost could it? Naaaa couldn't be.


So now the performance numbers have come out and sure enough my BS meter was right again. What we have is an ecoboost car that offers V6 levels of performance and V6 mpg, but it costs more to buy. I fully understand that you can run 87 or 93 in the ecoboost just like the GT but lets face reality here. This is the entry level Mustang, not the GT. The GT has become so expensive and uses so much gas that most GT owners just have them as weekend cars. The entry level car is the Mustang that gets driven day to day. It's the car that customers are far more likely to put 87 octane in to save a little money. But now we have entry level car that requires 93 if you want to get the "as advertised" performance level. I'd be interested to see what the performance numbers are using 87 because we all know that is what the majority of customers will use. I'm betting the performance numbers on 87 aren't even as good as the V6.

So no, this isn't about you AWmustang. This is about my absolute disappointment in Ford and what they have done. What I see with this car is corporate greed. The entry level Mustang outsells the GT by something like 3 to 1. Now Ford has come up with an excuse to jack up the price of the entry level car under the guise of "but it's an ecoboost." Does anyone really believe that Ford could not sell the ecoboost and the V6 for the same price tags and still make money on both? Hell yes they could. This notion that the ecoboost needs to have a starting price of $1500 more just because its an ecoboost is nonsense. Factor in the fact that it doesn't really deliver any better performance than the V6 and in my book its just a ripoff. I wouldn't buy that thing and if Ford drops the V6 from the lineup I just won't be a Mustang customer ever again. I guess I'll just buy used Mustangs and restore them as opposed to giving Ford the money.

newpony

^^^^ Thought I do like the low end torque of the EcoBoost I can not argue with anything you just said. I expected more too. The 3.7 is a very good engine. Perhaps the MPG went down because of the weight gain and Ford more realistic testing.