Topic: Official: 2015 Ford Mustang Details

[Autos_Editor]

After a leaky start, Ford releases official information on 2015 Mustang, including details on new 2.3L EcoBoost four-cylinder engine

Read More...

[redman]

If it's a mustang it has to have the V8. Just oh no with popo if I owned these wheels 

[drive67]

Less of the population want a 8 cylinder so Ford needs to sell more Mustangs to keep the model. I drove the pony a few years ago could of got it for $24,000 with leather what I didn't like was the handling and road feel. It was a highway cruiser  with a soft ride enough power comfortable but not very fun on a winding road.

[Fobroader]

Giggidy....factory boost 

[normancw]

I wonder how much lighter the 2.3L EcoBoost is compared to the V8.

[Noto]

The 2.3L's #s are very close to BMW's 3L turbo inline 6.  Imprezzive.  I wonder what the fuel scores will be between the 3.7L V6 and the 2.3L Turbo four.  Also wondering about power delivery.

Still, I'm just not a fan of having to pay more to save money, especially when the "tech" is to have a downsized turbo.

For similar power output, why else would you pay more for the 2.3L over the 3.7L V6 as the 'base' engine.

In the Caddy ATS, the 2.0T is the middle engine, too, but it's still a 4-cylinder underneath it.

If they're not careful, Ford may price the 2.3L's appeal right out of it.  Disappointing that it's not the base engine.

[Fobroader]

The 2.3L's #s are very close to BMW's 3L turbo inline 6.  Imprezzive.  I wonder what the fuel scores will be between the 3.7L V6 and the 2.3L Turbo four.  Also wondering about power delivery.

Still, I'm just not a fan of having to pay more to save money, especially when the "tech" is to have a downsized turbo.

For similar power output, why else would you pay more for the 2.3L over the 3.7L V6 as the 'base' engine.

In the Caddy ATS, the 2.0T is the middle engine, too, but it's still a 4-cylinder underneath it.

If they're not careful, Ford may price the 2.3L's appeal right out of it.  Disappointing that it's not the base engine.

The V6 is the base engine, the turbo will probably be marketed as the performance option....lighter than the V8 and the car will be better balanced. Id take the 4 banger over the V6 anyday of the week.

[Noto]

...so would I, but I wouldn't pay more for it.

[MarkStevenson]

...so would I, but I wouldn't pay more for it.

I would. That torque curve should be amazing.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The 2.3L's #s are very close to BMW's 3L turbo inline 6.  Imprezzive.  I wonder what the fuel scores will be between the 3.7L V6 and the 2.3L Turbo four.  Also wondering about power delivery.

Still, I'm just not a fan of having to pay more to save money, especially when the "tech" is to have a downsized turbo.

For similar power output, why else would you pay more for the 2.3L over the 3.7L V6 as the 'base' engine.

In the Caddy ATS, the 2.0T is the middle engine, too, but it's still a 4-cylinder underneath it.

If they're not careful, Ford may price the 2.3L's appeal right out of it.  Disappointing that it's not the base engine.

The turbo 4 costs more to produce than the V6. Why should they subsidize it?

I think some people balk because 6 is more than 4 so 4 should be cheaper.

[Fobroader]

The 2.3L's #s are very close to BMW's 3L turbo inline 6.  Imprezzive.  I wonder what the fuel scores will be between the 3.7L V6 and the 2.3L Turbo four.  Also wondering about power delivery.

Still, I'm just not a fan of having to pay more to save money, especially when the "tech" is to have a downsized turbo.

For similar power output, why else would you pay more for the 2.3L over the 3.7L V6 as the 'base' engine.

In the Caddy ATS, the 2.0T is the middle engine, too, but it's still a 4-cylinder underneath it.

If they're not careful, Ford may price the 2.3L's appeal right out of it.  Disappointing that it's not the base engine.

The turbo 4 costs more to produce than the V6. Why should they subsidize it?

I think some people balk because 6 is more than 4 so 4 should be cheaper.

This is a lot like the whole Bmw 320i VS 328i thing again...

[carcrazed]

The interior looks miles better than the previous disaster.

Mustang V8 if I don't do so well in the next 10 years.

Corvette if I do better in the next 10 years.

[Noto]

The 2.3L's #s are very close to BMW's 3L turbo inline 6.  Imprezzive.  I wonder what the fuel scores will be between the 3.7L V6 and the 2.3L Turbo four.  Also wondering about power delivery.

Still, I'm just not a fan of having to pay more to save money, especially when the "tech" is to have a downsized turbo.

For similar power output, why else would you pay more for the 2.3L over the 3.7L V6 as the 'base' engine.

In the Caddy ATS, the 2.0T is the middle engine,, but it's still a 4-cylinder underneath it.

If they're not careful, Ford may price the 2.3L's appeal right out of it.  Disappointing that it's not the base engine.

The turbo 4 costs more to produce than the V6. Why should they subsidize it?

I think some people balk because 6 is more than 4 so 4 should be cheaper.

This is a lot like the whole Bmw 320i VS 328i thing again...

Yes, it is.  I'd like to see actual costs of building the two engines.  In either event, I'd wager that the base V6 will sell better than the upgraded 2.3L turbo because nobody will want to pay more for a smaller engine with near-identical power numbers to save some fuel (though the V6 can take regular and the 2.3L will likely require the liquid gold).

Not that I like CBS (or their typos), but:
"For a combination of power and reasonable fuel economy, Ford is putting a version of its turbocharged EcoBoost engine into the Mustang. When the turbo kicks in, the engine will put out 305 horsepower. In quieter moments, the 2.3-liter engine will have better gas mileage than the bigger enginens. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ford-debuts-new-2015-mustang/

If that's the benefit Ford will be touting (which we know it will be), then it better be a <$1000 option.

[Fobroader]

For me its not a fuel thing, not gonna buy a Mustang because its good on gas, for me its the ease of getting more ponies out of it.....and that awesome PSHHHHHH sound when you shift. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I think fuel economy plays a part, but more so in Europe than here.

Import tuners love turbo engines. That's a demographic that hasn't really gravitated to the Mustang in the past. I'm fairly certain we'll be seeing 400+hp ecoboosts roaming around before very long.

This isn't really new. The SVO Mustang was more expensive than the 5L back in the day.

[Fobroader]

I think fuel economy plays a part, but more so in Europe than here.

Import tuners love turbo engines. That's a demographic that hasn't really gravitated to the Mustang in the past. I'm fairly certain we'll be seeing 400+hp ecoboosts roaming around before very long.

This isn't really new. The SVO Mustang was more expensive than the 5L back in the day.

....AND faster. Like the Buick GNX and Vette.

[Patrick_D1]

For me its not a fuel thing, not gonna buy a Mustang because its good on gas, for me its the ease of getting more ponies out of it.....and that awesome PSHHHHHH sound when you shift. 

It may not have that, depending on the setup. Most modern systems use a recirculating bypass rather than an atmospheric blow-off valve, so they don't make that noise. Some cars can be converted to run atmospherically (I may have done this to my Genesis Coupe...  ), but in cases where a mass airflow sensor (MAF) is used rather than a manifold air pressure (MAP) sensor, this can't be easily done without screwing up the car's AFRs.

[Fobroader]

For me its not a fuel thing, not gonna buy a Mustang because its good on gas, for me its the ease of getting more ponies out of it.....and that awesome PSHHHHHH sound when you shift. 

It may not have that, depending on the setup. Most modern systems use a recirculating bypass rather than an atmospheric blow-off valve, so they don't make that noise. Some cars can be converted to run atmospherically (I may have done this to my Genesis Coupe...  ), but in cases where a mass airflow sensor (MAF) is used rather than a manifold air pressure (MAP) sensor, this can't be easily done without screwing up the car's AFRs.

Someone will make a atmospheric BOV...they have to....such a pity not to have that sound....  Yeah yeah, its not as efficient, but meh, Ill give up a few ponies. Much like a rally cars anti-lag, I love the sound of forced induction.

[rrocket]

I had one of the louder BOV on the market for a bit.  People on sidewalks would JUMP when it blew off.

I sold it after the novelty wore off.  Stealth FTW...

[Fobroader]

I had one of the louder BOV on the market for a bit.  People on sidewalks would JUMP when it blew off.

I sold it after the novelty wore off.  Stealth FTW...

Stealth is for fighters!! Gimme turbo noises!!!!

http://youtu.be/3N59Q5y0rdc