I’m sure there’s a good reason it hasn’t been done yet, but I’m going to ask for it anyways: how about a 3.5L EcoBoost V6 Mustang? Why not call it a Shelby GT500?
In an era where the Mustang V6 Performance Pack can put down respectable acceleration and lap times, it’s reasonable to expect that the public is ready for a high performance V6 twin-turbo pony car. Take the all-new anti-lag equipped 3.5L EB from the Raptor, crank the boost up to the GT’s 600+ horsepower output. Add a stick shift or the new 10-speed. You have a Hellcat competitor that also ties into Ford’s EcoBoost motorsports push.
I’m aware that the mere notion of a V6 EcoBoost Shelby GT500 will make the V8 faithful have a stroke, so maybe it needs another moniker. Call it the Cobra. Or the SVO. The Twin Turbo setup was a popular modification for the famed ’03-’04 “Terminator” Cobra. I think my proposed Mustang would be a hit, even with two fewer cylinders. It’s only a matter of time until Chevrolet get’s the same setup in the next-gen Camaro.
I don’t really care what hardware makes the power, but I do care how that power is delivered. What makes a NA V8 attractive to me (at least in a performance application) is effortless low-end torque combined with the possibility of nice exhaust sound throughout the rev range. I know turbos of various displacements and configurations can deliver the former easily, but they’re usually pretty bad at the latter.
Edit:
I would also add that the larger the gap between the power a given engine would have in a NA configuration and the power it makes because of the turbos, the less linear the power delivery often is. Preferences vary, of course, but I don’t particularly like the way that feels.
@smartascii – the EB3.5 in the F150 has way more “effortless low-end torque” than the 5.0 but the V6 sounds p!ssy with aftermarket exhaust.
I personally would prefer a V8 if a performance Mustang was in my future if for no reason other than sound and feel.
In “40 kph over automatic impound” BC, a V6 normally aspirated engine makes sense but sense rarely ever is a factor in a performance purchase.
I’m surprised a Mustang “GT-R” hasn’t been done yet. Once the SHO saw daylight I thought it would only be a matter of time.
Also, a TT V6 Mustang that might, ostensibly, be lighter on the nose might translate better abroad.
Twin turbo kits have been available for V6 mustangs for decades.
uh…I’m talking about a twin turbo V6 Mustang from the factory…
Ahem…
“With the coming CAFE standards which will choke displacement like the hangman’s noose, big engines with more cylinders are gonna become more scarce. It’s not a myth, but a fact slowly coming from behind and showing itself across the landscape of high-performance cars.
Rumors are just now starting to swirl around the Ford Performance realm that the Mustang V8′s days could be numbered. Whispers just this week at the Detroit Auto Show say a GT500 could come and with it the last V8 Mustang produced, with future high-end performance coming from EcoBoost four and six-cylinder engines.
The Ford GT with its carbon fiber light, its Formula One performance from such humble hardware as a twin-turbocharged V6 will be Ford’s new halo car for a reason. It will be the marketing sucker punch that proves a large V8 isn’t necessary to blow your mind. It’s because it’s the way of the future. ”
http://www.themustangnews.com/content/2015/01/ecoboosted-future-ford-performance/#.VLlqAy6Do_w
The Hellion Twin Turbo Coyote makes anywhere from 700-1200 horsepower putting the gimpy V6 to shame.
Yes, but they aren’t busting out a TT Coyote in a production car. It would be awesome, but it isn’t happening.
They busted out a TT Coyote in the CobraJet.
That was a concept though. Aren’t the current CJ500 Mustangs NA or supercharged?
“That was a concept though. Aren’t the current CJ500 Mustangs NA or supercharged?”
That was not a concept. The twin turbo Cobra Jet was for sale.
Really? I thought it was only a concept. The current (2013/14) Cobra Jet has a 2.9L Ford Racing Whipple Supercharger.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1083049_2014-ford-mustang-cobra-jet-details-announced
The CJ500 is off road only. Same with the FR500 with the Cammer 5.0
They have serial numbers, but no VIN.
John R – common misconception. The EB3.5 is 5 pounds heavier than the 5.0.
EB – 449lb. versus 5.0 444lb.
The next 3.5EB should be lighter than the current engine. It might end up being lighter than the Coyote.
@bball40dtw – probably not by much.
No. I don’t think it will be a significant change. The weight difference between the two doesn’t matter.
This assumes the 5.0 isn’t also getting lighter.
Assuming your assuming it stays the same, of course.
I wonder if this is strictly engine weight or if the turbos, intercooler piping and clamps, and intercooler are added as well.
A twin turbo V6 would not at all be lighter on the nose.
Reviving the SVO would be nice, I’d rather have a souped up V6 than the cheapo de-tuned thing you get in current V6 Mustangs.
Just ditch the dumb burnout control feature thing.
…the SVO had car-geek credibility, as would a modern ecoboost V6, but i suspect that like the SVO a modern small-engine halo would flounder in general public enthusiasm…for better or worse, iacocca’s “secretary’s car” has become as married to the image of a stonking V8 as the 911 is to a rear-engine layout in the public eye…
…still, for what it’s worth, i too think a legitimately-tuned ecoboost mustang would be cool as hell…
I think it’d be cool if they kept the fake audio stuff out of it and didn’t worry about it stealing sales from the V8s.
Imagine the Mustang fans competition with one another, V6s vs V8s, imagine all the free press and attention for Ford.
Detuned from what? It makes about as much HP as any other V6 its size.
And a twin turbo V6 would step on the toes of the V8, unless it were smaller, in which case it would just be better to go with a 4 banger. Only way I could see a V6T working is if they brought it in to replace the 2.3T AND V6… make it 3.0L, give it a hot V configuration with a single snail. Even with that simple configuration it would probably cost and weigh as much as the V8.
Detuned from last years V6.
Yes. I want it. Slot it above the Mustang GT if you have to, I’ll pay for it. Call it Mach 1, or something else crazy, I don’t care. It will be faster than the Mustang GT and I want it now.
Love the Mach 1 idea.
Are you speculating or is this some kind of insider, may actually happen, insight?
Haven’t heard anything yet
That Ford insider guy is gonna be super-pissed off if they develop and announce an EcoBoost Mustang without telling him.
Ford released an official statement that they will not drop the V8 Mustang or F150.
Full Disclosure: I own a Lincoln MKS with a tuned 3.5l ecobosst. I would have been happier with a V8, but the engine provides broad average power throughout the rev range. I also own a Mustang GT.
That said, the Mustang GT is a car defined by a certain style, feel, design, sound. Part of that package includes the sound and balance of a V8. Sorry, I would not purchase a V6 GT.
No, just no – not in place of the V8. The Mustang is the only car of its type I would consider as it is (since Challenger is sweet, but larger and not really pony car IMO). Like it or not Ford there are a contingent of people who do not want what you’re marketing and may never want it. Regarding what GM may or may not do with Camaro, stupid is as stupid does – don’t be stupid Ford.
But….MOAR POWER!!!!
Unless Ford reworks the Coyote (direct injection), the 3.5EB is going to leave it in the dust. Ford says the 3.5EB in the Raptor will have more HP and Torque than the outgoing 6.2L. So that’s 411 HP and 434 lb.ft of torque. The torque part is easy, but a 3.5EB Mustang with 450+ HP and 500+ lb.ft of torque makes me think happy thoughts.
Not everyone wants direct injection.
The most offensive thing about “EcoBoost” is the goofy name. Had this engine been named TwinForce as originally planned, there would be less resistence to the change.
Oh the “EcoBoost” name is stupid. I won’t deny that.
You eventually hit diminishing returns, I’d prefer a a focus on high efficiency V8 which already gives plenty of power but could also give high city fuel economy. Best of both worlds. ZOMG its got 900000 bhp… but the roads are cratered and the speed limit is still 55. Generally speaking turbo, while being able to deliver more power per ci/litre etc, has its disadvantages other than simple preference.
@Maxb49
That’s a much better name.
They’ve hit diminishing returns sooner on the V8 than the TT V6. I want the V8 to be around, but I would choose the 3.5EB over the 5.0L in the Mustang. I would rather the Mustang I buy actually be a Lincoln, but that’s apparently way too much to ask…
Per the Internets, Mustang curb weight is 3,526 to 3,705 lbs. The K-body Deville had a curb weight of just over 4000lbs and despite the *numerous* issues with Northstar I would describe its driving as “spirited” at 275bhp and something like 270 ft-tq @ 5600 rpm, then. So subtract 300-500lbs and add even 75bhp to “spirited” I think we’ve hit a generous power/weight ratio. Now add 125bhp and 125 ft-tq to the package and you’ve hit diminishing returns for sure. Sure everybody likes to say things like “got a Hemi in it” or back in the day the old guys liked to elbow you and mention “the Corvette engine” in their D-body Fleetwood, but ultimately its marketing bs. A 500bhp Mustang does me no good except on the track, hell even the 6.2 GT500 is partially in this category. But give me that sweet N.A. 6.2 or 5.0 at 400bhp+ or 350bhp+ respectively and tell me it can do 29 city on an automatic without a turbo crutch or battery pack etc? Now you’ve got my attention. I can only drive so fast on cratered roads and a posted 55mph speed limit, but I still might want the option out of a normal US American style motor.
…i wonder if lincoln could credibly market a cougar or capri, or better yet call lincoln’s pony car the mercury?..
Call it a Lincoln Mercury?
Too soon
…yeah, probably, but how long is long enough?..i wonder what contractual encumbrances linger over the old trademarks and how long manufacturers may let them lay before pending abandonment forces their hands…
….despite the mockery mercury’s rebadging exercises may have attracted, i’ve always carried affection for their upmarket pony cars, and i hold out hope that someday we may see them again…
A 6.2L V8 that can hit 29 MPG in the city? Pass along whatever it is you’re smoking, ’cause that’s some great stuff. Nobody’s hitting 29 city with an engine above 2.5L or so. I’m not aware of a V8 option from any manufacturer that even break 20 MPG city,
That’s the point, it *could* exist if research was put toward it.
Right. That’s why everyone is downsizing, turbocharging, using regenerative braking (even in non-hybrids), and generally using every trick they can to bump fuel economy that little bit higher.
Really, there are two possibilities. One, as you say, it’s just a matter of doing the research. Or two, big NA V8s, despite their numerous great qualities, are and will always be lousy for gas milage. Given the fact that internal combustion engines have never been more efficient (ie they ARE doing the research and have the results to prove it), that fuel economy at every level has never been higher, that anyone who could come up with such an engine would have a MASSIVE competitive advantage, and the universal absence from every car manufacturer of anything even remotely approaching what you’re asking for, I’m going with option two.
No, because I wouldn’t take a Mustang anyway. It just isn’t the car for me.
In purely intellectual terms, as an idea, sure.
I’m not sure the “Mustang Guys” will ever really accept “not a V8”, despite the constant popularity of the I6/V6 Mustang in the “real world” from day 1.
(And the way the modern engines, circa 2015, all outpower every factory engine available in the Original Mustang, after converting to Net Horsepower.
At least that’s what a quick overview suggests to me.
The base Mustang today might be a little slower than the very best Mustang of the first generation simply because it weighs half a ton more, but it’s a better car in *every rational analysis*.)
Except for the lack of a V8 rumble/roar, a boosted V6 ticks all the boxes. Then again, a V6 can be made to sound nice in its own way.
The only question for me is this – would the lower stresses in a bigger capacity, lower revving, non-boosted engine not be more reliable in the long term?
Yes, a V8 will be more relaible for handling the extra heat cycles, having better engine balance, and heavier internal parts.
It’s probably a case of diminishing returns though, unless your goal is to beat Irv Gordon.
The larger displacement v8 revs 800rpm higher than the EB v6. Turbo engines tend not to have high redlines. Difficult to get good response and low end while feeding enough air at 7000+ rpm.
I would be fine with it. Heck, I quite like the current turbo-four Mustang and would pick that over the six or eight-cylinder models, even if the six was blown.
I can see the point of not offering one, though. If you’re not a V8 purist, the four is lighter, can be boosted pretty high and, in my opinion, sounds better (I find V6s sound like taxi cabs)
There’s not a lot of middle-ground for a blown six; a NA four is a more likely option.
I’ll amend that; I’d take a Mustang with a boosted inline-three.
Ford certainly is going “all in” with the Eco Boost engine. I hope for the buyers sake they have done extensive testing at the upper limits of this engines capabilities. Ive watched them flop in the diesel segment by pushing engine platforms that were by no means ready or fit for service and the results were catasrophic. I had a front row seat to what is probably the largest class action lawsuit to date against a single engine platform (the 6.0). The 6.4 wasnt much better and just as short lived. Ford certainly wasnt afraid to let the public be the guinea pig for either of those engines, I hope they have done their homework on this Ecoboost.
BTW, get rid of the hideous name and give it something more enticing and powerful sounding.
The Ecoboost V-6 has been a runaway success as the preferred engine for the F-150 pickup truck. Ford has accumulated a lot of experience with this engine. In my mind, there’s still the question that plagues all DI engines: how do you remove the crud that builds up on the intake valve stems from oil mist introduced by the PCV system, without a spray of gasoline? Ford explicitly recommends against the use of “sea foam” and similiar cleaners, which apparently pose a risk to the turbochargers.
The SVO took a few 100 lbs off the GT’s front end. The Eco Boost is heavier than the Coyote. Next question?
Not really seeing the point. And I’d rather tune the Coyote to 500 hp than the EB to 600.
I test drove an SVO an said GAWD DAMN!!!, while owning a Mustang GT.
No the Eco Boost would be a downgrade.
What about using the 2.7L Twin Turbo V-6 that Ford just started offering in the F-150? Wouldn’t that weigh less than the 5.0 Coyote while offering somewhat better performance than either the base 3.7L V-6 or the 2.3L I-4 Ecoboost?
Yes.
As the 2nd owner of a 2006 with the 4.6L V8, to which the original owner added a BBK intake and cat back exhaust (true dual with X-pipe and Flow Pro “Twister” mufflers); I think I’ll always prefer the sound of a V8!
I always thought the Mustang “Bullitt” cars( or whatever the special editions was called in early 2000’s) with the 4.6 sounded pretty good. I had a 94 Cougar with the 4.6 and always thought it could use a bit more growl.
I do enjoy the sound of a V8, you’d be nuts if you didn’t. Especially one with a tasteful exhaust. As long as the performance is there, it shouldn’t matter how it’s powered. But there is something about pony cars, it just NEEDS to be a V8 at the top.
I like V8 noises. But I also like turbo noises.
Why not both?
Why not indeed. If there is one model out there which should be highly configurable from the factory, it should be the Mustang.
Man that sounds awesome, but I’ll be honest, it’s way past my driving ability without some serious electronic assistance. I’m okay with admitting that (I’ve already wrecked one Cobra in my life).
We can have both? Why did no one tell me I could have both?
“We can have both? Why did no one tell me I could have both?”
Have you missed on on the BMW 550, Mercedes Benz E550, S550…?
I am aware of other twin turbo V8 vehicles. I did not know “all of the above” was a choice in this exercise.
The obvious answer to all issues presented is a TTV8.
A supercharged V8 would be better yet. Instant neck snapping torque vs the split second it takes a compound turbo set up to light.
This brings up a question I just thought of. Ford keeps calling the EcoBoost a twin turbo configuration. Is it truly a twin turbo or are they compounded? The latter makes for a more linear power band and quicker response, I’d actually be surprised if it is actually a twin set up.
When the turbines are properly sized, a twin turbo V8 is superior to a supercharged V8 for response and power.
A turbocharged car will always have some sort of lag.
It can be masked but without a physical connection to the engine or some sort of mechanism (like an electric motor) that lag however miniscule or disguised will be there and response is not the same.
Modern turbocharging offers no free lunch no matter what the marketing folks tell and would like for us to believe.
A SC will always have better response, but I still prefer a turbocharger.
Plus boosted large displacement engines are just so much fun. They do minimize some of the downsides of turbos as they have a larger amount of exhaust gas to play with just by nature of being bigger
The Ford 3.5EB has two indentical turbo chargers that act indepentdently of each other. It’s a parellel twin-turbo set up, not a sequential one like the Supra had.
That’s interesting. I wonder why they chose this route, unless there is something in the world of turbocharged gassers I’m missing. A compound set up in the diesel world will make more power early and be more linear through the rpm’s.
Are they fixed turbos or variable geometry?
Fixed geometry turbos. The variable ones are more common in diesel engines. The higher temp gas engines ate up early variable turbos. Now you see them in sports cars, but not in most gas vehicles.
“The higher temp gas engines ate up early variable turbos.”
Sustained egt’s of 1200+ degrees are not uncommon on modern diesel engines. Much hotter than in any spark ignition engine. The only problem VGT’s have consistently had in diesel engines are excessive sooting from heavy EGR cycles and either short tripping the engine or not running them hard enough. This could all be prevented by using the engine the way they are designed, and they are designed to be run hard. VGT’s are made of the same metals as any fixed turbo and if you are running it hot enough to “eat” the turbo you’ve probably already turned your valves into puddles of molten and more than likely a few pistons as well.
Compound turbo setups are easier to do on inline motors like the supra and most diesels because both turbos are on the same side of the motor. Think about what that would take in a V-configuration. Too much plumbing and associated weight, packaging issues, and extra lag due to greater volume in said plumbing.
Also, most Ecoboost motors – being four bangers – are single turbo, hence the dropping of the Twin-Force moniker.
“Think about what that would take in a V-configuration.”
Not really that much. Take a look at the Maxxforce 7/ 6.4 Power stroke engines. Those are V8 engines with compound turbos in the valley of the block. Virtually no plumbing and plenty of support. Very efficient (more so than a twin set up)
I’m skeptical that configuration would fit in a mustang. Space is very tight, especially at the back of the engine. I don’t think there’s room enough to run the exhaust up behind the cylinder banks and that’s assuming enough room under hood for the turbos which isn’t a given since there’s less clearance than the last gen. But hey, if someone wants to give it a try, be my guest. 😊
The right answer is a Lincoln version with the 3.5EB as the only engine and the new Ford AWD system as an option.
That sounds like an interesting idea, a Lincoln Cougar of sorts.
Only problem is that 2-doors aren’t really in anymore, 2-door styling is though.
Bring them back
Let’s start a thing: #sedanstoobland #5doorssuck
I’m hoping Ford will introduce a Lincoln concept along these lines by the NY Auto Show. With center-pull doors, of course.
Make it a “four door coupe” or whatever the hell they are calling low roofline sedans these days. It gives Lincoln another product (maybe people would actually go in a Lincoln dealership), adds a high margin vehicle to that platform, makes Lincoln Calvin pee on Caddy, the Mustang keeps the V8, and the south doesn’t rise up.
I have to disagree, four doors with limited room for rear passengers is a complete fail on general principle.
It would have to be stretched if it’s four doors. I wouldn’t want to roofline to be lower than the Mustang’s either. I’d perfer a MkIX, but if I got a Continental, I wouldn’t complain.
CUVs could use a formal roof too imo, its no secret that straighter rooflines equal more space, just look at the most recent Golf for example.
Thats interesting trivia on the W-Body being intended for coupes originally, I still want an Impala some day.
The four door coupe thing should’ve died with the Pontiac Grand Prix.
I say make it an Audi TT competitor, but with a more formal roofline.
Make it something that can “kick ass with class!”.
In the case of the Granx Prix, W-body was originally designed to be a coupe platform, and rear doors were added later. In theory, the platform was never intended to be a sedan. Since I own one, I argue it still has more headroom than the Benz CLS500.
You are right. The Mk 9, Mark X, and Continental concepts had more formal rooflines and looked classy. I like that better.
Sedans should have formal rooflines for um rear passengers (why else do you need them?), a coupe with two doors is where you can get a little goofy and I don’t complain.
I guess I just mean more greenhouse. I don’t want squashed Camaro windows on my Lincoln.
How about the 3.5 EB in an AWD Flex? Make 1000 copies for the final year of production, which is probably coming soon.
As others have pointed out, an NA 5.0L V8 is roughly equivalent to the 3.5L EB in power, weight and available torque curve.
From trueness to character/marketing/brand perspective, the V8 holds the advantage.
There might be a small contingent (folks we grew up on Sport Compact) that actually favors a TT V6 with lots of ECU tunability over more traditional headers + cam(s) + intake route.
I _could_ see an EB holding an advantage in international markets where taxes are indexed to displacement. Might be some efficiency/emissions advantages to be wrung from a test-cycle-specific tune on the EB as well.
The counterpoint is that a 3.5L Mustang might already be in such an expensive bracket overseas that its only buyers could already afford a 5.0.
I have no doubt the power delivery of the 3.5TT is more than adequate for pony car use. I agree the sound wouldn’t be up to snuff.
It makes me wonder though. The V6 will never sound like a V8, but I wonder if some exhaust tricks like the SRT4 Neon (no mufflers, turbo as muffler, special resonators)could give this thing a salacious spine tingling banshee wail all its own. I always liked the SRT4 Neon, those things had a (sweet, imo) sound all their own.
Everyone who remembers when the original Mustang came out (aka “Baby Boomers”) wants a V8. Everyone else doesn’t want a Mustang at all, unless they are at the rental counter in Honolulu or Orlando.
Baby Boomers only have 15-20 car-buying years left, let them enjoy their V8s.
@heavy handle – there is considerable truth to what you say. The babyboomer demographic sits at 50 years old on the low end. Anecdotal evidence indicates that most V8 buyers are in that age group.
Same can be said for Harley Davidson but they are F^cked once boomers stop buying as they cannot find much appeal in any other age group.
Lou, I wouldn’t bet on that, the local high school has plenty 1/2 and 3/4 trucks from the 90s-10s, and in the weirdest turn of events I’ve noticed 2 Harley in that same lot. And going to the local dealer(s) I see many people around my age (34) and even younger browsing around or even driving in on the bikes. I’m going to be pulling the trigger on a softtail in the near future. I’m used to riding Hondas and Suzukis, but after driving the Softtail my father bought, I’m sold on buying one myself.
Since I would end up boosting it anyway, I’d rather have the V8. Replacement for displacement and all that.
“No replacement for displacement”
Can’t tell you how many times I heard that phrase growing up. Dad had 5 brothers and they were all big block junkies to the core.
But the statement is flat out true. Why? Because, performance wise, anything you do to a small engine you can do to a big engine. And its difficult if not impossible to make the small engine big.
Can I get a hallelujah!
The only thing you can’t do to a big engine is reduce it’s weight
Aluminum and magnesium construction can go a long way in lightening a big engine, as well as OHV design.
You got that right.
The V6 has ample power capability, but the issue I have is one of character. I would only buy this kind of car to enjoy the whole aesthetic package. Turbo’d engines push a visceral wedge between you and the engine.
*There is no such thing as a lag free turbo engine. The best turbo applications still have some lag and always will because RPM and engine load are not the same thing.
*Turbo’s quiet an engine as much or more than a muffler. You don’t get the roar unless it’s through your speakers (ugh).
*Turbo’s have artificially flat torque curves. You drive a turbo in the mid-range. That’s OK on it’s own, but half the fun of a V8 is feeling the way the torque ramps.
At the end of the day, a turbo V6 may be faster than the V8, but not everything is about speed.
Mrlcky,
A small displacement low volume engine matched with a huge ass turbo; this is what most of my friends would build when they were putting together a dyno number queen or when building a monster for high speed highway racing. Maximum potential power and boost were realized at or near redline unless nitrous was used. Drivability “in town” was absolutely horrendous because of turbo LAG.
This is the exact opposite of what manufacturers are doing on modern turbocharged cars. They are using small matched turbos with low friction internals. Technology such as twin scroll and variable timing to assist, combined with direct injection and ignition tuning; LAG is practically non-existent. For example, BMWs N55 and Fords EB 3.5 experience peak torque at or below 1500 RPM. These numbers are practically off of idle!
What lag?
Like he said, rpm is not engine load. There must always be lag in a turbo system. You can not have boost til you have load. The lag may be minuscule but it by the laws of physics must exist, it may not matter on paper or on the track but in terms of driver satisfaction the way the car responds is everything. Some may like the lag just fine others may not notice it, but those who know what they want will never be happy with that fractional delay.
Drew. Please show me a dyno graph of a mass produced naturally aspirated V8 that yields 350ft-lbs @ 1500 RPM.
I concede that the response is not immediate and that some lag is inherent. You wait for power to arrive in a V8 as well only it is linear and takes longer.
I’m not saying I would not choose a V8 over a TTv6, I just don’t understand why so many people dwell on lag.
I could show you some dyno graphs of an inline 6 putting up 900lb ft @1680 rpm…. Turbo charged, of course :-)
Please show me a dyno graph of a mass produced naturally aspirated V8 that yields 350ft-lbs @ 1500 RPM.
http://gmpowertrain.com/2014_images/charts_lg/2015_L86_6_2_V8silSie.jpg
The 8.1l gasser has over 400 lb-ft of torque at 1,500 RPM, first page of search.
The EcoBoost is a nice engine, maybe a bit thirsty when used with any throttle.
But if Ford really want to be radical read the link below.
http://www.gizmag.com/bmw-adds-four-triple-turbo-diesel-performance-m-cars/21227/
A Lincoln coupe with unique styling and a really nice interior built on the current Mustang platform with an Ecoboost V6 could be a compelling package. On the other hand, much like the current MKZ, its mere existence would enrage people who want to see Lincoln die for whatever reason.
So for those opposed to the 3.5 V6 EB, would you be OK with a 3.5 V8 EB? Is it the turbo that’s offending you or the lack of cylinders?
4.0 and below is too small for production V8s. The M3’s 4.0 made measly, marginal torque and was a gas guzzling pig! 6.0 is about the sweet spot for autos and 5.0 for DOHC V8s.
There’s nothing wrong with twin turbos, like an STS catback setup to turn up the heat on a V8. Terrific actually. Or for a normal V6 b/c that’s all you got. But for simply replacing 2 perfectly good cylinders amounts to chasing one’a own tail.
Well then I love me some measly, gas guzzling pig and will drive mine till the wheels fall off. Don’t get me wrong, turbo cars are OK (I drive a ’15 STI in winter) , but don’t compare where it matters. My ’65 ‘stang also has a V8, wouldn’t have it any other way.
It didn’t say I wouldn’t mind beating on an M3 for a day or 2. Just not the most optimal V8. And also heavier than the Coyote.
It’s the added displacement of the 5.0L V8 over the 3.5L GTDI. If we were restrained to say the 4.6L or 3.5L GTDI, obviously my favor for the V8 would wane.
I thought about this and the new Ford GT, at first I was thinking why not a 3.5 V8 EcoBoost but what is the point of doing a V8 that small – other than being able to do an extremely over square engine offering plenty of bore to maximize the size of the valves and maybe push stratospheric RPM… well limited by the valvetrain and maybe reducing the overall height of the engine however your adding on two cylinders worth of additional friction with the V8 when the V6 can easily overcome the valve size limitation due to forced induction.
Anyways as others have pointed out, part of the reason people buy Mustangs is to get the V8 and the rumble and power associated with it even if they never go drag racing or do anything more than a short onramp squirt. Its part of the mystique of the modern Muscle Car.
Would I accept an Ecoboost V6 Mustang? Yes, a nice 2.7L V6 Ecoboost with 350hp instead of the 2.3L 4 cylinder Ecoboost. Lets start with that…
+1: The 2.3T should be base and the 2.7T V6 should be the mainstream engine.
Turbo charging is a kind of replacement for displacement. You can get the power, especially the torque, of a much larger motor with our the extra weight and internal friction of more cylinders. Lighter weight on the nose means sharper handling and quicker throttle responses.
Turbo charging technology has made remarkable leaps forward in the last 10 years or so in terms of reliability and mitigating turbo lag.
The sound… All high performance engines sound great to me. highly tuned V6’s are smoothly melodic and powerful sounding, add the turbo whine and waste gate whistle and you have a winner.
Short answer, YES!
As seen above the ecoboost weighs more than the V8, effectively killing the only advantage of a smaller engine in a muscle car.
Don’t forget crappier base specific fuel consumption as well compared to a naturally aspirated V8. Its fine when you drive an EcoBoost car like a muddled doddering half blind old guy who thinks frozen molasses moves dangerously quick but driven in anger where extra fuel is used to things from turning into piles of molten metal the advantage of reduced displacement and turbocharged power on demand disappear.
The Eco Boost lacks any dramatic compressor swoosh. But in case you’re unaware, the Eco Boost is heavier than the Coyote V8. Yes heavier. And as thirsty. More thirsty if you drive it hard. So I’m really not getting the point of it . Can you help?
then there is no point… Oops. I guess a V6 aimed at a full size pickup truck has all kinds of weight added to make it reliable for truck applications, so you don’t blow the crank when you pull your boat out the water or tow a small house.
Horsepower is strictly a function of airflow. Turbocharging isn’t a “replacement for displacement”. Turbocharging is displacement. When you turbocharge a car, you’re forcing more air into the engine. Hence, your engine displaces more cubic feet per minute of air, and you have “more displacement”. Same thing with increasing RPMs, cylinder size, number of cylinders. The only thing that matters is airflow.
Hard to tell Ford isn’t just F’ing with us. Like when they announced the Mustang was going FWD and V6 turbo “GT”
I know it created a buying frenzy of V8 Mustangs.
Let me think about that for a min…. ummm no, not only no but hell no! Not wearing the GT500 nomenclature at least.
An EcoBoost V6 Mustang would be pretty cool but a lot of people associate Mustangs with V8’s, there is a story floating right now that Ford is out of the V8 engine business in 2017 and plenty of Mustang people taking that story as gospel aren’t to happy about that and would think nothing of jumping ship to GM or FCA to get their V8 fix.
Post above notes that EB 3.5 outweighs the Coyote 5.0.
What is the weight difference between the base Mustang 3.7 and the turbo 2.3? Does either have a significant advantage in taking the pounds off the front end?
ajla,
I stand corrected.
We run these in our Ford Falcons (until their demise).
It’s a supercharged 5 litre Miami V8, based on the Coyote. It is lightened and weighs marginally less than the Coyote.
If the Mustang ran this engine it would sound like a V8 and have kick ass power. The Falcon is in the 14s in a 0-200kph sprint and 4s for a 0-100 sprint.
It has 536hp and 480ftlb of torque, not bad for a family sedan!
Here’s a cut and paste, then the link which I hope does work.
“You’ll read that FPV has added overboost mode – they haven’t… It always existed in the Miami calibration.
What the engineers (lead by FPV engine calibration guru, Bernie Quinn) have done is used new ‘tools’ such as alternative throttle pedal maps (different maps for different gears) and better integration of the Falcon’s Bosch 9.0 DSC stability control system to allow the Miami V8 to give closer to its best across a wider range of real world conditions. This in turn allowed them to calibrate the engine to hold existing maximum boost pressures (and therefore maximum torque — beyond 569Nm and up to 650!) across a wider rpm range.
Torque times rpms equals power. Cue bigger headline kW number.
http://m.motoring.com.au/reviews/large-passenger/ford-performance-vehicles/gt-f/fpv-gt-f-2014-review-44046
The EcoBoost V-6 would make sense for an SVO model; they were turbo and geared toward handling. The GT-500 has always had V-8’s, starting with non-CJ 428 and seem more suited for straight-line performance. I’m dying to see a twin-turbo, direct injection Coyote; that would be fitting for a GT-500.
I’d love to see an SVO Mustang come back with dual wing and everything. A turbo V6 would be great. I just love the rush of power you get from a turbo, the down low torque and the sound of the BOV. The lag is not that bad, most of my cars have been turbos and the lag is actually kind of fun as car seems to have a bonus “gear” between each shift when the power really kicks in. The tunning potential on turbos is huge as well, just look at what APR does with VW’s boosted engines. The problem is a turbo V6 would most likely be quicker then the V8 and we can’t have that now can we?
I don’t care what you call it…You can add some Bill Blass badges for all I care. I would accept it and put it at the top of my list.
Perhaps though there is merit to badging it as a Lincoln. Then you avoid all of that “gotta have a V8 nonsense.” Honestly as one who became car aware in the mid 80’s the Mustang offeting a 2.3 4 and a 5.0 v8 just kinda feels right.