Right even HP / TQ would be great but what's most important is that the increases are available low-mid range. They can always find another 10-20 HP but it always seems to be at the very top end and unless your going to the drag strip you're not gonna feel it in daily driving.

I'd rather see additional TQ available down low to get moving quicker.

 

The closer measure of the actual energy a motor is putting out is the HP. I could create X amount of torque given enough lever, and enough time. However, power and acceleration are time dependent variables, thus, a higher power rating will ultimately trump a torque rating given any measure that involves time such as acceleration rate. Good juicy torque numbers can, on their own, give nice seat of the pants feel, but to churn out actual acceleration numbers, you need actual power, i.e. hp.

As for the rough character of the VQ motor, that is to a degree inherent in any V6, even a 60-degree one. They simply don't have perfect primary balance and over much more than 3 liters, that really starts to show, especially in any motor that aspires to rev much. In contrast, say, are straight sixes, that do have essentially perfect balance and thus, are creamy smooth regardless of revs. I can well attest to that having an E46 M3 that spins up to 8K rpm with silken smoothness.

The Stang's 3.7 is pretty darned good in terms of power, torque and NVH, but neither is it immune from the limitations of its configuration and size.

 

Much truth here!

 

Doesn't horsepower give you a higher top end speed, and torque quicker acceleration?

 

The relationship between torque and horsepower is not as disparate as it appears.

The problem is people tend to separate the two values into different forces when there is only one that is a force (torque) and the other (horsepower) describes how much work you can accomplish with that force.

 

Did anyone else see the official presser for the new Lincoln MKC escape clone... 2.3 ecoboost 275hp and 300lbft, in mustang tune we could easily see 300hp+

 

The v6 already makes 300+ so it would be interesting how the sales for both models would compare. It pribably depends on how much more efficient the turbo 4 will be.

 

On paper the hair-dried four banger will certainly be more efficient, in the real world with your average Mustanger the V6 will probably come out on top in terms of mileage.

I think the bigger draw with Ecoboost is that it resonates with techies and as an affordable power adder car.

On an unrelated note, I read a press release from Comp Cams, they have already released cams for GM's DI fueled LT motor, I'm not sure how Ford implements their high pressure side pump but if its similar to GM then a separate lobe on a camshaft drives the pump and can increase flow by as much as 75% (IIRC) by altering the shape of the fuel pump cam.


Perhaps with the Ecoboost Mustang we will see something similar for high horsepower applications since swapping injectors on a DI engine isn't exactly an easy chore.

 

I read that the 2.3 EcoBoost will be tuned for about 310 HP and be an option over the 3.7 V6

 

Yea, I could see Ford offer the 2.3 Ecoboost with 310 - 330 horsepower. People will still buy lots of 300 horsepower V6 Mustangs because they will be less expensive than the special Ecoboost powered Mustang.

 

Yeah in real life I doubt the turbo 4 will get better MPG. there are a few DI turbo 4's already out. Haven't had a chance to check. But my sisters Mazdaspeed 3 got around the same mileage of my 2012 GT. she got 2-3 more on the highway bc she stayed out of boost cruising.
And if they are both making similar power gonna be hard for Ford to charge more for an ecoBoost engine that gets the same gas mileage and similar performance.

 

They're doing that with the EcoBoost V6 in the F150's though

Charging more for the 365hp/420tq V6 versus the 360hp/380tq 5.0 and advertising it as a combination of power and fuel mileage.
Yes, it gets better hwy mpg than the 5.0, but around town and towing they're about the same.

The 2.3 EcoBoost will have 5 more HP than the 3.7 V6 but a bunch more torque while getting better hwy mpg.

Therefore, a price premium.

 

It's a gimmick that's working well for the F150 crowd. But that's for people who tow and use their trucks for work. Easier to pull that off when you sell close to a million trucks a year. The mustang sells around 100k a year in a good year. And takes less fuel and boost to get 360/380 out of the V6 than to get 310/320 out of the 4. Now in Europe I think they will like it because of all the engine size penalties. I think in the US they need to keep the 6 as the base economy model and put the Eco4 in between that and the base GT. more of a import coupe fighter. Just can't see them pushing that kind of power in the 4 and getting mileage better than the V6

 

With the Mustang going to be a 'World' car, i would think the EB 4 will be a good seller. I know someone in England that went from a 2.0L to a 1.5L, he said he is saving a lot of money each year on some kind of 'tax' they have to pay for engine size. Maybe Twin Turbo could give us a better idea on how much the tax is? Just saying.........


Side note: Ford is pushing the EcoBoost hard. We just bought a new Edge and the salesman was trying to push the EB 4 cylinder on us. We got the 3.5L V6.

 

And smoother and better sounding, I'd take a V6 snarl over an I4 blat any day.

 

Salesmen push what makes them the most money typically. When I sold cars, I pushed what I was passionate about. FYI, my wife and I just traded in our 2009 Edge with the 3.5 for a Escape 2.0 Ecoboost. We love the mileage! Power is very good in the Escape. On that note, we LOVED our Edge.

 

Sounds like you're still trying to sell someone a car

 

What are you, my wife? My wife says I'm always selling. I hate sales or at least the anxiety of it.

You can take the boy out of the car biz, but you can't take the car biz out of the boy.

 

I might just buy one of those ecoboost 4 cylinder Mustangs just for kicks. I prefer V8 powered Mustangs, but an SVT Mustang with a 350 horsepower Ecoboost engine could make for a great track car. It would be something different to take out and crank out some rpms in.

 

Agreed on the rpm climb. I wonder how high itll rev, maybe 8k redline with an 8500 fuel cut off?
Full tourqe startin around 1500-2000 and just a stron steady pull all the way. Peak hp startin at 3k would be nice too