A much better GT is just sitting on the shelf at Ford. - 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 09-16-2017, 10:52 PM   #36
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Salinas
Region: California
Posts: 7,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
The all electric Tesla sports cars are actually SCARY fast. Instant torque, no AF ratios, no fuel system. Just floor it and boom.
The Tesla Racing Channel guy is pretty successful at grudge racing his car. Although he seems to pick his races fairly carefully.
I've never seen a video of that car at a half or full mile event though... Likely, because it would get walked by every boosted Honda in attendance, after the quarter mile mark.
straybullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-16-2017, 11:23 PM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Augusta
Region: Georgia
Posts: 2,964
I am not an electric or hybrid car fab at all. Technology may go that direction, but I still don't like it today.
Revvv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 02:25 AM   #38
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 17
The sound of the 5.0 is the most unique and awesome sound. 500hp is more than enough juice, unless you're at the track. Where I live at least guys get cars impounded for speeding non stop.

I got away from mustangs when they went to the 4.6, because of the sound. Many would say it's the signature of the Mustang. Rip it through a tunnel and the peepee goes up. A v6 won't do that, regardless of how fast you go.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
jakked is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-17-2017, 05:41 AM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Augusta
Region: Georgia
Posts: 2,964
A v8 Mustang, even the 4.6 has a signature Mustang tone. I have no idea what Ford does to give this Mustang only tone, but it is recognizable.

You can distinctly hear a Mustang in the distance.
Revvv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 01:29 PM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,380
Give me that 2.7 in the mustang and i'd probably be all over it. RWD, 350 hp, 3400 lbs, and less weight over the nose ... i'd be all about that.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 01:40 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Augusta
Region: Georgia
Posts: 2,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Give me that 2.7 in the mustang and i'd probably be all over it. RWD, 350 hp, 3400 lbs, and less weight over the nose ... i'd be all about that.
You can have it. If I want small displacement, I will get a Honda S2000 or Nissan 370.
Revvv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 01:43 PM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Catonsville
Region: Maryland
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Give me that 2.7 in the mustang and i'd probably be all over it. RWD, 350 hp, 3400 lbs, and less weight over the nose ... i'd be all about that.
3.5 or bust.
__________________
2013 SGM 3.7 | MPT Tune | JBA Titanium Ceramic Shorty Headers | MGW Gen 1 | Blowfish Street Bracket | BBK TB | 18" Charcoal AMR | FRPP 3.55 | BMR LCA | Steeda Panhard Bar | Dynotech 3.5" Driveshaft |
mariusvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 08:16 PM   #43
Registered Member

Regular
 
olerodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Corvallis
Region: Oregon
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by straybullitt View Post
What happened to the engine?
It's kind of long story although I can say that OE the turbo is around 7psi and we went A LOT further than that. It did help to have the sales manager and service manager on my side...they both drive CTS-V's and probably without them I may have had to replace the motor on my nickle.
On a side note the car did 449 RWH @ 6250 and 440lbft @ 5200 and that was a stock tune. With more boost it was very exciting
olerodder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 06:37 AM   #44
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revvv View Post
You can have it. If I want small displacement, I will get a Honda S2000 or Nissan 370.
Even though the 2.7 is twin turbo as well and makes like a ton more torque, horsepower, and has a much better powerband? sounds like you're being bitter just to be bitter. You dont have to like v6s, but you cannot honestly sit there and deny the power these ecoboosts are capable of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusvt View Post
3.5 or bust.
I'd be inclined to agree with you if i hadnt been doing a lot of truck research recently and in low speed / mid range conditions the 2.7 actually outperforms the 3.5. I'd care more about weight and response than outright grunt. I've tracked turbo cars and even a split second of "lag" is too much and can throw off a corner -_- . Not something i'd do again if i had the choice, but Ford really doesn't really offer a good track mustang right now at an affordable price.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 06:46 AM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Augusta
Region: Georgia
Posts: 2,964
Volt, I owned a Pontiac Grand Prix GTS for years. That engine would run forever. It also responded well to modifications. I have nothing against a gas powered V6. I just do not personally see a place for them in a full sized truck, or a Muscle / Pony Car.

My brother owns a 2014 Mustang sixer with the performance package. It is extremely nice. The car is also quick, but for me, I prefer the rumble of a V8 in an American performance car. The exception goes to the V10 Viper.
Revvv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 07:24 AM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revvv View Post
Volt, I owned a Pontiac Grand Prix GTS for years. That engine would run forever. It also responded well to modifications. I have nothing against a gas powered V6. I just do not personally see a place for them in a full sized truck, or a Muscle / Pony Car.

My brother owns a 2014 Mustang sixer with the performance package. It is extremely nice. The car is also quick, but for me, I prefer the rumble of a V8 in an American performance car. The exception goes to the V10 Viper.
I think we're on the same page more or less. I wouldnt mind a v6, and i dont know that i'd be upset, but i do prefer the sound of the v8. I cant give you that.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 08:05 AM   #47
Registered Member
Regular
 
c_rizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: New Orleans
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 1,006
I've had 3 cars now with the "regular" 3.5L Ecoboost, and I can tell you the power and delivery is very nice. (2012 F150, 2015 F150, and 2017 Explorer) I can only imagine how the high output 3.5L Ecoboost versions would feel.

What Mustang needs also though (from rest of Ford's technology piggy bank) is more aluminum / CF composite materials, to lighten it. Going from the 2015 F150 (aluminum body) to a 2017 Explorer, my MPG's dropped significantly.
c_rizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 08:48 AM   #48
Lorraine's driver

Regular
 
ab_mach1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Region: Indiana
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_rizzle View Post
I've had 3 cars now with the "regular" 3.5L Ecoboost, and I can tell you the power and delivery is very nice. (2012 F150, 2015 F150, and 2017 Explorer) I can only imagine how the high output 3.5L Ecoboost versions would feel.

What Mustang needs also though (from rest of Ford's technology piggy bank) is more aluminum / CF composite materials, to lighten it. Going from the 2015 F150 (aluminum body) to a 2017 Explorer, my MPG's dropped significantly.
What kind of output levels do they offer for the Explorer's these days? That's a great power plant level for that size of SUV. I will say that I'm surprised the trucks are lighter. I would have never guessed that, but I guess there is a lot more cabin area that probably accounts to that.
__________________
Instagram: @ab_mach1
ab_mach1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 10:41 AM   #49
Registered Member

Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Spokane
Region: Washington
Posts: 1,550
OK, for some of the naysayers for a V6 here......think of this:

The 510 lb/ft of twist is 30 more than the Nissan GTR has.......in a Mustang! Sounds like a fun, fast car to me!
Guard 5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 08:55 AM   #50
Registered Member
Regular
 
c_rizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: New Orleans
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab_mach1 View Post
What kind of output levels do they offer for the Explorer's these days? That's a great power plant level for that size of SUV. I will say that I'm surprised the trucks are lighter. I would have never guessed that, but I guess there is a lot more cabin area that probably accounts to that.
2015 F150 XLT Crew Cab 4,679 lbs w/ 365 hp & 420 lbs torque
vs.
2017 Explorer Sport AWD 4,901 lbs w/ 365 hp & 350 lbs torque

The biggest difference I guess is the Explorer is missing 70 lbs of torque!!

Also, my F150 had 3.55 (tow) gears that probably made it feel faster. vs. the Explorer's extra weight, stock gearing, less torque and AWD all probably siphon that feeling of power away.
c_rizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 09:07 AM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
1 Alibi 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hackettstown
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 716
When I ordered my 17 F150, my salesman couldn't understand why I didn't want the 3.5 EcoBoost..........( Whipple makes a really nice front feed 2.9 kit for the 5.0 F150 )
.

.
__________________

" Chance favors the prepared mind "
.
* SOLD * 2011 776rwhp.......documented " 1 of 2 "
2014 - detuned to 780rwhp
2017 F150 Lariat Scab, 5.0
1 Alibi 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 12:51 PM   #52
Lorraine's driver

Regular
 
ab_mach1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Region: Indiana
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_rizzle View Post
2015 F150 XLT Crew Cab 4,679 lbs w/ 365 hp & 420 lbs torque
vs.
2017 Explorer Sport AWD 4,901 lbs w/ 365 hp & 350 lbs torque

The biggest difference I guess is the Explorer is missing 70 lbs of torque!!

Also, my F150 had 3.55 (tow) gears that probably made it feel faster. vs. the Explorer's extra weight, stock gearing, less torque and AWD all probably siphon that feeling of power away.
The power modern cars/trucks have these days is just insane! I remember when 200hp was great LOL.
__________________
Instagram: @ab_mach1
ab_mach1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 12:53 PM   #53
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab_mach1 View Post
The power modern cars/trucks have these days is just insane! I remember when 200hp was great LOL.
What's really insane is these are responsive, relatively high compression engines that are capable of making this power on 87 octane ...
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 06:29 PM   #54
Registered Member

Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Spokane
Region: Washington
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
What's really insane is these are responsive, relatively high compression engines that are capable of making this power on 87 octane ...
That is true, and has anyone heard what Livernois is doing for the Raptor V6 with their tune? I shudder to think what they are going to be capable of, and it’s all just a few computer clicks away!!! No wrenching, just pure performance and TORQUE!!!
Guard 5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 08:56 PM   #55
Registered Member
Regular
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Augusta
Region: Georgia
Posts: 2,964
If they are making that power with a 6 (which is not difficult today), just think about the possibilities of two more cylinders.

I know that the 6 has an efficient design, but I'm attached to the American V8. A performance 6 makes me think of the Toyota Supra (I love those cars).

Add two cylinders to the Raptor, run a twin turbo, or twin charge it, and watch the torque improve by several hundred foot pounds.
Revvv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 06:26 AM   #56
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revvv View Post
If they are making that power with a 6 (which is not difficult today), just think about the possibilities of two more cylinders.

I know that the 6 has an efficient design, but I'm attached to the American V8. A performance 6 makes me think of the Toyota Supra (I love those cars).

Add two cylinders to the Raptor, run a twin turbo, or twin charge it, and watch the torque improve by several hundred foot pounds.
An interesting topic would be the ecoboost vs like the 3.8TT from Mclaren. 3.5 TT v6 vs 3.8 TT v8. What difference is there really between the two, that's an interesting thought for the whole v8 vs v6 since everything is downsizing these days anyways.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 06:28 AM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Augusta
Region: Georgia
Posts: 2,964
There is a lot of downsizing going on. That is very true.
Revvv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 08:01 AM   #58
Registered Member

Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Spokane
Region: Washington
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revvv View Post
There is a lot of downsizing going on. That is very true.
The name that Ford chose for their turbocharged engines, “EcoBoost”, was a brilliant marketing idea.....although in my experience you really can’t have it both ways......the engine is either “Eco” or “Boost”.
In my last F-150 with the 3.5 EB, I could get either 22 mpg or 12 mpg running around town — it was all up to my right foot, and how much I really wanted to enjoy the “boost” part of the equation.
Although the purists would, I am sure, howl like banshees — I can see a Mustang line in the future that is 2.4, 2.7, 3.5 — and other than the 2.4, all faster than the 2018 5.0.
The 3.5 could even be offered in F-150 trim and in beast mode, the Raptor version. Now, THAT would make choosing the Performance Package something meaningful — heck, even call it the GTP!
Again folks, this is an engine with 510 lb/ft of torque (out of only 213.5 cubic inches!!!) and a full factory warranty. Did you ever think you were going to see that? And the 2.7 is only 164.8 cubic inches, and makes crazy power per cubic inch. Do you remember when we thought that 100 HP/cubic liter was good for a race engine? There’s a reason that Ford made all the V6 Eco’s with completely forged internals — there is more to come from them, I am sure.
Guard 5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 08:37 AM   #59
Lorraine's driver

Regular
 
ab_mach1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Region: Indiana
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
What's really insane is these are responsive, relatively high compression engines that are capable of making this power on 87 octane ...
And keeping MPG's in check. Pretty amazing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
An interesting topic would be the ecoboost vs like the 3.8TT from Mclaren. 3.5 TT v6 vs 3.8 TT v8. What difference is there really between the two, that's an interesting thought for the whole v8 vs v6 since everything is downsizing these days anyways.
I would love to see a detail tech comparison on these two as well!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard 5.0 View Post
The name that Ford chose for their turbocharged engines, “EcoBoost”, was a brilliant marketing idea.....although in my experience you really can’t have it both ways......the engine is either “Eco” or “Boost”.
In my last F-150 with the 3.5 EB, I could get either 22 mpg or 12 mpg running around town — it was all up to my right foot, and how much I really wanted to enjoy the “boost” part of the equation.
Although the purists would, I am sure, howl like banshees — I can see a Mustang line in the future that is 2.4, 2.7, 3.5 — and other than the 2.4, all faster than the 2018 5.0.
The 3.5 could even be offered in F-150 trim and in beast mode, the Raptor version. Now, THAT would make choosing the Performance Package something meaningful — heck, even call it the GTP!
Again folks, this is an engine with 510 lb/ft of torque (out of only 213.5 cubic inches!!!) and a full factory warranty. Did you ever think you were going to see that? And the 2.7 is only 164.8 cubic inches, and makes crazy power per cubic inch. Do you remember when we thought that 100 HP/cubic liter was good for a race engine? There’s a reason that Ford made all the V6 Eco’s with completely forged internals — there is more to come from them, I am sure.
Ford has really been knocking it out of the park as far as marketing goes for the past 5 to 10 years.
__________________
Instagram: @ab_mach1
ab_mach1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 09:46 AM   #60
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard 5.0 View Post
1. The name that Ford chose for their turbocharged engines, “EcoBoost”, was a brilliant marketing idea.....although in my experience you really can’t have it both ways......the engine is either “Eco” or “Boost”.
In my last F-150 with the 3.5 EB, I could get either 22 mpg or 12 mpg running around town — it was all up to my right foot, and how much I really wanted to enjoy the “boost” part of the equation.
2. Although the purists would, I am sure, howl like banshees — I can see a Mustang line in the future that is 2.4, 2.7, 3.5 — and other than the 2.4, all faster than the 2018 5.0.
The 3.5 could even be offered in F-150 trim and in beast mode, the Raptor version. Now, THAT would make choosing the Performance Package something meaningful — heck, even call it the GTP!
Again folks, this is an engine with 510 lb/ft of torque (out of only 213.5 cubic inches!!!) and a full factory warranty. Did you ever think you were going to see that? And the 2.7 is only 164.8 cubic inches, and makes crazy power per cubic inch. Do you remember when we thought that 100 HP/cubic liter was good for a race engine? There’s a reason that Ford made all the V6 Eco’s with completely forged internals — there is more to come from them, I am sure.
1. The problem is the factory tunes. The vast majority of the population are complete idiots when it comes to caring for, and maintaining, a vehicle let alone a turbo charged one. People buy the cheapest, ****tiest gas, change the oil whenever the get around to it, dont have good plugs... just bad maintenance and care habits in general.
I had a turbocharged 4 cylinder that i tuned myself making over 400 whp on 93 and it got over 35 mpg hwy because i knew how to take care of it and didnt have to have a tune that was pig rich to compensate. Most factory tunes have AFRs well into the 10s on turbo vehicles, and you can really get by with high 11s and low 12s if you take care of it. That's 12-15% less fuel just right there.

2. If they could drop 300-500 lbs out of the cars i dont know that i'm against this.
Voltwings 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
Well my co worker ruined me for shelf beer... scottydsntknow The Bar 8 06-04-2017 05:32 PM
Running Pony Parcel Shelf jip289 2011-2014 V6 Mustang 5 09-04-2014 03:55 PM
wtb 99-04 rear deck shelf mattyp511 Mustang Parts for Sale and Wanted 10 12-17-2012 06:21 PM
Why off the shelf? Fast04 1996-2004 Mustang GT 28 11-21-2011 09:44 PM
6X9 spacers on rear package shelf Danger Dude Mustang Audio & Video 9 01-30-2006 10:35 AM

» Like Us On Facebook



04:52 PM


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.