I don't know for certain, but I will make some assumptions here based on what I do know.
So we know Ford's new hybrid system can be biased for performance like the Aviator, or for FE like the Explorer variant. The Aviator gets an additional 200 ftlbs on top of the 400, for 600 total. Explorer makes due with new 3.3L NA and a slight bump in torque. Me thinks that Ford will use the base 2.3L good for about 310-320ftlbs, and bring it up to something like 500ftlbs. And pricing should be around $30K. That is where the value is, where you can have a car that gets decent fuel economy, does not cost you more for insurance, and is fast as heck. And it's a Mustang.
I think this will likely be the Mustang ST. We'll see a power bump in the 335 to 250 range and it will come with a suspension/aero package similar to the GT PP2. I think the hybrid will be something else.
I don't know, adding 20hp or so to the base Mustang is hardly a performance value. I think if they work the hybrid system to really pump it up, and for dirt cheap, they can also have a hybrid version for FE. That is the benefit of this new system. Very flexible.
I just have to wonder if it'll get the "full" version of the turbo 2.3, giving it the same HP as the Focus RS...because that would add power without adding the weight of a hybrid system.
If biased for performance, it would surely get the untouched 2.3L. No Atkinson cycle, or more specifically, no Miller cycle for GTDI. That is what they did with the Aviator, leaving the 400hp 3.0L untouched.
I just hope they massage the 2.3 and create a good lightweight Mustang variant with its own dynamics. I don't necessarily want this to be a hybrid, because that will come with a serious weight penalty.
I had an LX 5.0L in early 90's. It was quick enough, but dang did I get pissed every time a Buick GS would beat me in a race:surprise2: But I recall the price was not that much less than a GT, like just a few hundred difference.
I am torn though, as Zana suggested, I too would love to see a bit more boosted power out of base 2.3L, a mild SVO if you will. But on the other hand, Ford's new integrated MHT transmission houses the power split architecture, which is very compact and relatively light. Combined with the new lightweight battery array (1/3 size and weight of previous) you can bias that hybrid power for massive torque and sport instead of FE. This is V8 performance for thousands less in price, gas and insurance. That is the value I speak of.
Did a quick search to see if Ford's new MHT transmission is newsworthy yet, and I only saw early patents. Here it is, pretty much same as when it was developed like almost a decade ago. Amazing how long it takes.
Just for reference, the much higher cost and higher strung RS 2.3L boosted engine, has the same 350 ftlbs as current base Mustang 2.3L. The 40 extra HP from RS tune, would not do much by way of changing the feel from sprightly to 'performance.' We are talking a couple of tenths off 0-60.
The RS isn’t simply a ‘tune’....it’s a different engine. The Ranger is the only other vehicle that shares that uses the same engine currently - Explorer is next.
Focus RS 2.3L is same basic engine. Different turbo, tune and cam. I think pistons are different as well. I take back my earlier remark about much more cost. Much of the RS cost is in the FWD/AWD drivetrain with torque vectoring. The tune itself is modestly increased. This does make sense for value, but increased performance remains mild with roughly same torque, which is what you notice most.
No no no and no...wrong...here are the differences:
‘...The RS engine’s best feature is a unique low-inertia, twin-scroll turbocharger with an improved compressor (to boost airflow) and an improved and significantly larger intercooler.
Ford has considered the engine right down to its materials, completely redesigning the cylinder head from an upgraded alloy, modifying the engine cooling design and mounting it on a strong head gasket. To reinforce the strength of the engine, the cylinder block has a durable cast-iron lining for maximum protection. The cylinder head and gasket were both created by high-performance automotive engineering company Cosworth....’
The above can be confirmed because during no manufacturing of the RS 2.3T, headgaskets from the Mustang were used which led to many engine failures and Ford doing a campaign to fix all cars (my RS was actually included in the campaign)
Looks like embargo has just passed regarding this so-called 'entry level performance model'. Not SVO or anything major other than quick updates here and there and boosting horsepower from 310 to 330 with torque remaining at 350. Rather disappointing if you ask me. Surely there's something other than this to be announced/revealed at Ford's afternoon press conference on the 17th to commemorate Mustang's 55th birthday.
Hmmm, just as I feared, a mild bump in I4 hp. Oh well, I guess we can't expect too much for a value model. Although this does make more sense if they provide the rest of the package, gearing, wheels, tires, brakes, etc. And thinking a bit further yet, these I4's tune easy and cheap.
I tend to compare cars with how I was first reading about them and experiencing them, as an 80's adolescent:
(most figures from old Car and Driver mags)
In 1983, the Mustang GT hit 60 in about 7 seconds. The SVO took about 7.5 going into 1984.
The 1987 5.0 was about 6 seconds to 60. The various 4.6 variants dropped it into the 5s, and the current GT is somewhere in the low 4s.
If I use the SVO as the spiritual ancestor, the new car is 3 seconds faster to 60, probably a full tenth of a G stickier in corners, has nearly twice the horsepower, and looks to be priced relatively close (with dollar values properly adapted).
Yes, everything is chunkier and what-not nowadays...but there's some tangible progress for ya.
I tend to compare cars with how I was first reading about them and experiencing them, as an 80's adolescent:
(most figures from old Car and Driver mags)
In 1983, the Mustang GT hit 60 in about 7 seconds. The SVO took about 7.5 going into 1984.
The 1987 5.0 was about 6 seconds to 60. The various 4.6 variants dropped it into the 5s, and the current GT is somewhere in the low 4s.
If I use the SVO as the spiritual ancestor, the new car is 3 seconds faster to 60, probably a full tenth of a G stickier in corners, has nearly twice the horsepower, and looks to be priced relatively close (with dollar values properly adapted).
Yes, everything is chunkier and what-not nowadays...but there's some tangible progress for ya.
Current EB stang with perf pack runs to 60 in about 5.5sec. I think 5sec flat will be attained considering the new gearing. More than enough for a daily sport driver that also gets 31mpg. And costs far less. And costs you much less in insurance. And to be honest, I tire of the V8 droning. I don't always want to hear my muffler. So, yeah, this is a nice option.
Although, I would have loved to see what a perf hybrid could do. Oh well.
Current EB stang with perf pack runs to 60 in about 5.5sec. I think 5sec flat will be attained considering the new gearing. More than enough for a daily sport driver that also gets 31mpg. And costs far less. And costs you much less in insurance. And to be honest, I tire of the V8 droning. I don't always want to hear my muffler. So, yeah, this is a nice option.
Although, I would have loved to see what a perf hybrid could do. Oh well.
My estimate is off, Ford team targeted a mid 4 sec 0-60 time. Color me impressed if so. That somehow it can out sprint the Focus RS which has more power and a few less pounds, is impressive. I think drive train factors tell the story here, with 2 more gears that shift faster and lack of AWD friction loss.
...I find that humorous, because I seriously wanted an SVO when it was new. Stupid ass DOT wouldn’t approve the flush headlights, otherwise that Stang is my favorite from the era with that double spoiler. Then again, I also loved the XR4Ti.
Well, golly...in the years I've been around here and other car boards, Wings tended to have more actual knowledge/insight on all things Ford than anyone I can name...and has given us bits of info (very carefully) that have ended up having real relevance.
Meanwhile, "hellboi" has been here a month or something and basically contributes digital spittle.
And you're correct, the 2.3 EB in Ranger is an evolution with its Forged Steel Crank and Steel Rods, it's made at Cleveland engine Plant Brook Park, not imported from Valencia.
I wonder if the HP EB Mustang engine will be made locally....
I think all NA 2.3 Ecoboost are made in ohio. Otherwise my whole joke of telling ppl I got a 140 Cleveland when they ask what motor I have goes out the window lol.
So an article on Motor1 this morning makes speculation there is a more powerful Mustang Ecoboost in the works. They base this on the fact when they asked a spokesperson why they didnt call the hipo ecoboost svo, "Not this one," a spokesperson said quietly during Ford's media-only reveal event in Corktown, Detroit when we questioned why.
So could a more powerful Ecoboost be on the way? Maybe using the full 350hp or maybe even the 3.0T from the Explorer Sport?
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ford Inside News
156.3K posts
16.3K members
Since 2007
A forum community dedicated to all Ford owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about reviews, news, concepts, industry trends, classifieds, maintenance, and more for all Mazda, Lincoln, Mercury, Mustang, Ford models!