With a $1570 difference, what is your definition of "noticeably?"

 

Horsepower wise not but torque wise yes!! Especially when all that torque usually comes very low in the RPM range with turbocharged engines compared to NI engines. Add the fact the turbo 4 is lighter according to Ford which mean closer to 50/50 weight distribution and a more nimble car…it is worth it in my book. Remember the V6 will only be available for the basic and rental fleet cars. No premium or performance package for V6.

 

Curious of the rpm for the peak numbers. Particularly the EcoBoost 4 and when that torque starts building.

Hard to believe the 2.3L from the II is still with us in the 21st century - albeit with numerous advances.

Here are the official numbers, straight from Ford, "pending certification." For this sixth generation, the base 3.7-liter V6 model’s power rating drops from 305 hp to 300 hp. Torque holds steady at 280 lb-ft. Compression ratio for the V6 is 10.5:1. The base V6 fastback with a manual weighs in at 3526 lbs, an increase of 30 lbs over the 2014 model. With an automatic, the curb weight is 3530 lbs, a 12-pound increase.

The GT, which uses a rowdier version of the outgoing 5.0-liter Coyote V8, now has 435 hp and 400 lb-ft of twist, up 15 hp and 10 lb-ft from its predecessor. The compression ratio is 11:1. Roll a base 2015 6MT Mustang GT fastback onto the scales and it'll show 3705 lbs. That's an 87-pound increase over the 2014. With the new automatic, the Mustang GT weighs 3729 pounds, a 54-lb increase.

In EcoBoost guise, the 2015 Mustang offers 310 hp and 320 lb-ft torque from its 2.3-liter turbocharged four-cylinder on 93-octane gasoline. It's a twin-scroll turbo—the first ever used on a Ford. The compression ratio on the turbo 'Stang is 10.5:1. Whether all that will be enough to win over Pony purists is still to be determined.
And what does the EcoBoost weigh? In base trim with a stick, 3532 lbs. That's 36 lb more than a V6-equipped 2014 car. The EcoBoost automatic weighs 3524 lbs. That's a 6-lb increase vs a comparable 2014 V6 automatic.

 

That's unexpected. You'd think the EcoBoost would weigh a little less than the V6.

 

It's not all the peak numbers dude, the fact that all that torque comes on before 2k rpms will make a huge difference... It'll be nearly twice as much toque at that range of rpm than the v6. Not only will the ecoboost get better economy, it will be loads quicker, funner and faster and at not a big premium over the v6. After driving the ST for 18 months with the 2.0 ecoboost, I believe that the 2.3 will surprise many in how capable it will be to move the mustang. And if it's anything like the 2.0 ecoboost, the torque will be underrated... It was advertised with 270 tq at the crank and most were seeing that to the wheels! Plus, turbo motors have a lot more to play with in the tuning department, and the 2.3 could easily get to the mid high 300s tq to the wheels with basic tune files. V6s beware

 

So with the V6 and Coyote engines being the same weight as they each were in 2014, and the bodies for both being the same, yet the increase in weight for the GT compared to the V6 is 57#'s greater, are we to assume that the extra increase in weight for the GT is in a beefier IRS/half-shafts compared to the V6 (and EB4)?

 

LOL all this wait and that's it? Well... ehh. I still think 2016 or 2017 will be the real awesome year for the mustang.

 

<In EcoBoost guise, the 2015 Mustang offers 310 hp and 320 lb-ft torque from its 2.3-liter turbocharged four-cylinder on 93-octane gasoline. It's a twin-scroll turbo—the first ever used on a Ford.>

How do you know 2K? Typically turbo's take longer to build boost right? Or is that symptom overcome with the 'twin scroll' turbo? Or are you just guessing?

 

That is the main advantage of twin-scroll turbo and according to this http://www.at.ford.com/SiteCollectio..._Factsheet.pdf the 2.3 Ecoboost is indeed a twin-scroll turbo setup.

 

That's probably at least part of it. Has Ford published any info on brakes? It might also be that the V6 is using the same brakes as 2014 and the new GT will have have larger - therefore heavier - brake rotors.

 

You prognosticators are awesome. Can you tell me tomorrow's lottery numbers?

 

The GTs come standard with the Brembos now. V6 and 2.3 brakes are about equal to the standard 11-14 V6 brakes, with bigger rear rotors.

Don't forget the standard curtain and knew airbags now too...

 

 

You're... you're kidding, right?

THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO READ. YOU POSTED IT ALL.

You don't get the concept of a 'tease' do you...

 

It's an educated guess based off of the 2.0 ecoboost and comments from the first drive of the 2.3 EB mustang. And yes and mentioned previously the twin scroll will help with that, the 2.0 had a smaller turbo (k03) the spoiled quicker and built torque early with almost zero lag. The 2.3 has a larger (k04) turbo that is two scroll so it will be more powerful and still build boost quickly with relatively little lag. The focus ST builds peak torque at 2700 rpm. Though there might be a tiny bit of lag, typically turbos hit peak torque much earlier than naturally aspirated engines. All I'm saying is that the power will be more accessible throughout the powerband and will be more torquey which makes the car feel faster, making it more fun. The focus st has traction issues with fwd, I can only imagine the 2.3 EB with rwd being able to hook, I bet it hits 60 just below 5 seconds

 

^*^ oh and flamesuit on to all those v6 guys that get their Jimmy's rustled by all the ecoboost talk

 

The one thing to keep in mind is three years ago, the 2011 V6 and 5.0 were underrated. Insideline put them on the dyno and found that the V6 really put out 308HP and the V8 435HP when Ford stated 305 HP and 412HP. So, time will tell.

 

Wow. I would have guessed mid-high 3's.

 

Seriously??

This has been discussed at length. It has what is essentially the boss exhaust cam. The boss heads and a retuned gt intake manifold.

 

just like they did with the 2010 to the 2011 platform we're seeing 435 for the gt then next year they'll introduce direct injection for a bump in HP.


I'm only posting that so i can say i was right if it comes true lol since that seems to be a thing.