OK GT fans --- why NOT the new 500 HP EcoBoost in the GT for 2017? - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2015 Mustang GT



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 02-01-2016, 01:32 PM   #36
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pleasanton
Region: California
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard 5.0 View Post
And all that is from only 213.583 cubic inches!!!! That means the Raptor engine is making 2.34 HP per cubic inch -- and it's a STREET engine! And 142 HP per liter!
Remember when 100 HP/Liter was a HUGE deal?
Yup.
__________________

Tuned by AED
*694 RWHP/677 RWTQ* 10.22@136mph
Currently Assaulting California's Roadcourses
Fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-01-2016, 04:02 PM   #37
Registered Member

Regular
 
olerodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Corvallis
Region: Oregon
Posts: 2,705
I'm so old I can remember when breaking the 1HP per cubic inch barrier was a real big deal!
olerodder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 04:54 PM   #38
Registered Member

Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Spokane
Region: Washington
Posts: 1,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerodder View Post
I'm so old I can remember when breaking the 1HP per cubic inch barrier was a real big deal!
Yeah, I was going to mention that too, but did not know how old you really are ..............oh, and GO COUGS!!!!
Guard 5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-01-2016, 05:27 PM   #39
Registered Member

Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Spokane
Region: Washington
Posts: 1,594
As far as improving the performance of these EB engines............I do know that if I'd bought a 305 HP 2.3 EB Mustang, I might feel a little cheated by the same engine in the Focus RS having 350 HP.
That's just not right!
Guard 5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 06:24 PM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
Beviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Syracuse
Region: New York
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard 5.0 View Post
As far as improving the performance of these EB engines............I do know that if I'd bought a 305 HP 2.3 EB Mustang, I might feel a little cheated by the same engine in the Focus RS having 350 HP.
That's just not right!
Absolutely to that!
Beviking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 06:38 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Salinas
Region: California
Posts: 7,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard 5.0 View Post
And all that is from only 213.583 cubic inches!!!! That means the Raptor engine is making 2.34 HP per cubic inch -- and it's a STREET engine! And 142 HP per liter!
Remember when 100 HP/Liter was a HUGE deal?
I do!
I was amazed when Honda introduced the S2000.

I would be more impressed if these engines that are being referred to were naturally aspirated... Boosted engines have been producing big power numbers for a long time.
It's neat that the auto manufacturers are using technology that has been used in race cars for decades.

Probably, the "powers that be", and the "bean counters" at Ford, have already had lengthy discussions on the subject of the prospects for a twin turbo V6 Mustang.
straybullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 06:45 PM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
alecas447's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: miami
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard 5.0 View Post
As much as I LOVE the sound of the 5.0 --- even with the stock exhaust --- I would have to think long and hard about the 500 HP Mustang I have described here.
Keep both engines in the lineup and let the consumer decide.....hmmmmm....a 445 HP V8 with the torque peak at 4,700 rpm, or a 500 HP, dual turbo V6 with 100 more lb/ft of torque than the V8 all available at 1,900 rpm................hmmmmmmm.....still thinking?

I'll take any v8 over any high hp EB


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

Mac o/r H pipe. Flow master super 44s. Accufab 70mm throttle body. Pro comp intake manifold. MSD coils
alecas447 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 08:41 PM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by straybullitt View Post
I do!
I was amazed when Honda introduced the S2000.

I would be more impressed if these engines that are being referred to were naturally aspirated... Boosted engines have been producing big power numbers for a long time.
It's neat that the auto manufacturers are using technology that has been used in race cars for decades.

Probably, the "powers that be", and the "bean counters" at Ford, have already had lengthy discussions on the subject of the prospects for a twin turbo V6 Mustang.
They do have a twin turbo V6 coming but in the Lincoln. (3L-400HP)
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2016, 12:06 AM   #44
Registered Member

Regular
 
olerodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Corvallis
Region: Oregon
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by straybullitt View Post
I do!
I was amazed when Honda introduced the S2000.

I would be more impressed if these engines that are being referred to were naturally aspirated... Boosted engines have been producing big power numbers for a long time.
It's neat that the auto manufacturers are using technology that has been used in race cars for decades.

Probably, the "powers that be", and the "bean counters" at Ford, have already had lengthy discussions on the subject of the prospects for a twin turbo V6 Mustang.
The first motor in my Maverick was 110HP per liter....with a single 850cfm carburetor......I'm pretty old so naturally aspirated to me means carburetor...and to most everyone else means fuel injection........I was 43 when I bought the first Ford 5.0l with OE fuel injection.......different generations and different interpretations.
As with most high performance engine components like roller cams, roller rockers, mechanical fuel injection, electronic fuel injection....most of these achievements didn't come from auto manufactures.....but were born from venues.
With that said I totally agree that turbo's have been around for almost as many years as I've been working on cars.....Ford and Buick are the only US cars that have had large numbers of TC'd cars run down the production line some 3 decades ago.....a decade earlier it was the Porsche 911 Turbo.....the first Indy 500 race car using a turbo was 1952...they have been around for a long time.
It's just not the "bean counters" that want a V6/2.0/2.3l TT in the Mustang and the engine placed midships........
olerodder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2016, 01:58 AM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Salinas
Region: California
Posts: 7,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerodder View Post
The first motor in my Maverick was 110HP per liter....with a single 850cfm carburetor......I'm pretty old so naturally aspirated to me means carburetor...and to most everyone else means fuel injection........I was 43 when I bought the first Ford 5.0l with OE fuel injection.......different generations and different interpretations.
As with most high performance engine components like roller cams, roller rockers, mechanical fuel injection, electronic fuel injection....most of these achievements didn't come from auto manufactures.....but were born from venues.
With that said I totally agree that turbo's have been around for almost as many years as I've been working on cars.....Ford and Buick are the only US cars that have had large numbers of TC'd cars run down the production line some 3 decades ago.....a decade earlier it was the Porsche 911 Turbo.....the first Indy 500 race car using a turbo was 1952...they have been around for a long time.
It's just not the "bean counters" that want a V6/2.0/2.3l TT in the Mustang and the engine placed midships........
I'm not that far behind you... I come from the carburetor-era as well.
Much of the "modern" automotive technology comes from World War 2 airplanes. Turbocharging, supercharging, turbo-supercharging, nitrous oxide, methanol injection... the list goes on.
Any list of early turbo-charged, mass-produced cars would be incomplete without including the Corvair.

I would also like to see a well executed, mid-engine Mustang someday. The back seat is useless anyway.
I think that it is the "bean counters" that are responsible for keeping the engine options limited to powerplants that will keep the Mustangs profitable, with an appeal to a broad market.
straybullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2016, 03:23 AM   #46
Admin

Supporter
Admin
 
bucko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lake Mary
Region: Florida
Posts: 5,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by straybullitt View Post
I'm not that far behind you... I come from the carburetor-era as well.
Much of the "modern" automotive technology comes from World War 2 airplanes. Turbocharging, supercharging, turbo-supercharging, nitrous oxide, methanol injection... the list goes on.
Any list of early turbo-charged, mass-produced cars would be incomplete without including the Corvair.

I would also like to see a well executed, mid-engine Mustang someday. The back seat is useless anyway.
I think that it is the "bean counters" that are responsible for keeping the engine options limited to powerplants that will keep the Mustangs profitable, with an appeal to a broad market.
As long as the "bean counters" are seeing the car sell for a good profit, it won't change much. The Camaro was dropped, and then resurrected with a vengeance. The Challenger and Charger sales were dropping; Dodge did a radical change, and now they are the current king of the HP mountain, pony car wise.
Ford will no doubt put forward a competitive Mustang, once the bean counters detect a drop in its current popularity.
__________________
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
bucko is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2015 Mustang GT

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why, Mustang fans, why?? RVAStang05 The Bar 38 11-21-2011 12:58 PM
1976 ford mustang will not start, not headlights come on, it is not the battery, why? eifion Classic Mustangs 6 08-24-2009 04:12 AM
Any Final Fantasy Fans or Need For Speed Fans Justin The Bar 34 11-07-2006 12:44 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



02:56 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.