Skip to main content
Topic: Ecoboost Stang coming soon! (Read 14834 times) previous topic - next topic

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #15
Quote from: Shadow;377679
i don't know why, but i'm not feeling the muscle car '2nd era' thing at all.. the mustang and camaro never struck me as muscle cars.. a muscle car in my mind is a big car with big power.. ie - torinos, chevelles, etc etc.. plus the whole gas mileage aspect of it doesn't fit in with it for me..

Considering that a bone stock run-of-the-mill V6 (or 4-cyl turbo) midsize family car would run rings around just about any so-called "muscle car" from the 60's (at least everything except the ragged edge, barely even streetable, rare-as-hell-because-nobody-bought-them-back-then top-end big block cars like the Hemi Belvederes, 427 Galaxies, etc), in every category from straight line acceleration to skidpad to figure 8 to slalom to fuel economy to safety to reliability, and considering that if a ~280 hp family car isn't enough for you, you can always buy an SHO, 300C, Charger R/T, etc, and if that isn't enough you can step up to an SRT8 300C or Charger, AND considering that most of these are cars  that aren't even considered fast nowadays (all but the SRT8's anyway) when compared to others that really are fast, I can only say this: I'm certainly glad that the automotive industry doesn't fret too much over the muscle car in your mind.

There is no doubt about it: The golden age of the automobile is right now. Cars are more powerful and perform better in every aspect right now than they ever have and will ever be (with looming CAFE sphincter clenching and more expensive fuel). Actually I shouldn't say that: Advanced technology means we will not see another Decade of Suck (known to car guys as the 70's). Back then it was a choice: Performance or economy/emissions (and unfortunately the government made that choice). Nowadays we can have both. Cars will likely get lighter and will perform better because of it, but they'll also come with smaller, more efficient engines. This has already happened - the Mustang is lighter than the Camaro and has a smaller engine, but eats its lunch performance wise. Ford has promised a lighter 2015 Mustang, as GM has promised a lighter Camaro and Chrysler has promised a lighter Challenger (or Cuda, whatever they call it)....
2015 Mustang GT Premium - 5.0, 6-speed, Guard Green - too much awesome for one car

1988 5.0 Thunderbird :birdsmily: SOLD SEPT 11 2010: TC front clip/hood ♣ Body & paint completed Oct 2007 ♣ 3.55 TC rear end and front brakes ♣ TC interior ♣ CHE rear control arms (adjustable lowers) ♣ 2001 Bullitt springs ♣ Energy suspension poly busings ♣ Kenne Brown subframe connectors ♣ CWE engine mounts ♣ Thundercat sequential turn signals ♣ Explorer overhead console (temp/compass display) ♣ 2.25" off-road dual exhaust ♣ T-5 transmission swap completed Jan 2009 ♣

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #16
Quote from: Haystack;377719
How is it much different? If I know 5 guys that can get 300 hp from a carbed 302 and 25mpg, why couldn't someone with a wideband and fuel injection get 600 out of a larger and more powerful motor? How are they getting 400hp and 30mpg out of the mustangs and camaros? The more efficent and engine runs, the better power it will get. You mixing in methonal just hurts gas mileage and changes your tune. You might get better power, but it kills your mileage.

Remember david claffin on sbftech. I think he is running 11's and getting 28mpg highway.

i used my desktop dyno to get a ballpark flywheel number on the capri.. mind you, it's a stupid computer program and not all too accurate.. with that said, it says my 408 at 18psi is pushing about 945 at the flywheel, over estimated by at least 100, i'd think..

anyway, we'll use 845 at the flywheel, subtract 100 for drivetrain loss and say 745rwhp (just for the example).. back that with a worked C6, 3500 stall (non-lockup) and 4.10's.. yes, the lack of OD and the 4.10's hurt, but i don't drive on the highway.. no need to, when 90% of the places i go are within 15 miles..

with straight gas, i got 15-16mpg at 12psi.. when i bumped to 18psi after the F.A.S.T. system and unmixed gas, i was averaging 10-12mpg.. when i started mixing and went for a re-tune, i gained mileage, due to the cooler burn of the methanol and the tune to adapt the mix.. between my lack of OD, gear rear and amount of boost, getting over 20mpg isn't possible.. especially since i'm contemplating 20-22psi, since she may be used as a 8.0 or 10.0 index car this year

would i gain mileage by switching to an OD trans? most certainly.. will it last as long as my C6 for the amount of money i put into it? never.. i'd have to spend double to make it hold up to what the C6 is rated at now.. do i need the OD? not 1 bit.. cruising at ~50mph, the rpm's sit around 26-2700.. do i ever drive it over 50 on the street? sure, but hardly ever and when i am, it's under full boost..

and as for the newer stangs getting great gas mileage with big power, it's purely all innovation, design and development.. if you think ford just put together a motor and threw it in a car and that was the end result, you're sadly mistaken.. i'm sure ford's development team spent months on a computer, designing the new coyote 5.0 to have more power than the mustang is known for, as well as the fuel economy of a 4 cylinder (obviously not current 4cyl standards, but take it back 3-4 years and the economy numbers are close)
ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #17
Quote from: Thunder Chicken;377725
Considering that a bone stock run-of-the-mill V6 (or 4-cyl turbo) midsize family car would run rings around just about any so-called "muscle car" from the 60's (at least everything except the ragged edge, barely even streetable, rare-as-hell-because-nobody-bought-them-back-then top-end big block cars like the Hemi Belvederes, 427 Galaxies, etc), in every category from straight line acceleration to skidpad to figure 8 to slalom to fuel economy to safety to reliability, and considering that if a ~280 hp family car isn't enough for you, you can always buy an SHO, 300C, Charger R/T, etc, and if that isn't enough you can step up to an SRT8 300C or Charger, AND considering that most of these are cars  that aren't even considered fast nowadays (all but the SRT8's anyway) when compared to others that really are fast, I can only say this: I'm certainly glad that the automotive industry doesn't fret too much over the muscle car in your mind.

There is no doubt about it: The golden age of the automobile is right now. Cars are more powerful and perform better in every aspect right now than they ever have and will ever be (with looming CAFE sphincter clenching and more expensive fuel). Actually I shouldn't say that: Advanced technology means we will not see another Decade of Suck (known to car guys as the 70's). Back then it was a choice: Performance or economy/emissions (and unfortunately the government made that choice). Nowadays we can have both. Cars will likely get lighter and will perform better because of it, but they'll also come with smaller, more efficient engines. This has already happened - the Mustang is lighter than the Camaro and has a smaller engine, but eats its lunch performance wise. Ford has promised a lighter 2015 Mustang, as GM has promised a lighter Camaro and Chrysler has promised a lighter Challenger (or Cuda, whatever they call it)....

yes, the auto industry is in it's prime right now, but i still don't get that muscle car feel.. again, of course they're going to perform better and be more consumer friendly than the cars of the past, but it's just not the same feel.. i understand it's the second coming of the muscle car era and things will be 'better' in comparison, but they just don't strike me as the cars from the first era.. could it be the fact that i'm entirely anti plastic and paper thin sheet metal? most likely.. and the styling could be a little more desirable.. i also believe adding a 2nd performance model would really make it more of a muscle car era than it is, currently.. in the 60's and 70's, you didn't have 1 high performance car to choose from, you had several.. right now, GM is the only 1 with 2 performance cars, although i despise corvettes, no matter what year/body style.. plus the vette isn't a 'muscle car' by any means, as you all should agree.. it's a 2 seater sports car
ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #18
Back in the 60's they weren't all muscle cars either. For every GTO, SS, Super Bee and Cobra Jet there were eleventy-two million six cylinder and small V8 (you know, the 289's, 273's, 327's, etc) Tempests, Chevelles, Chargers and Fairlanes. Back then they weren't "Muscle cars", they were "intermediates", and for the most part they were every bit as boring as my 2011 4-cylinder Sonata.

Same thing goes in that "New Dart" thread. Some have said that Chrysler is blashpeming the "Legendary" Dart name by pasting it onto an economy car. I say bullshiznit. The new Dart will fill the exact same slot in the automotive landscape that the originals did: The bottom feeder in Mopar's lineup. The original Dart was never meant to be a performance car, and probably 90% of them left the plant with slant 6's and 318's. And the few 340 and Big-Block Darts that were made will undoubtedly be echoed in modern times by a 4-cylinder turbo Dart that will blow the doors off of any original version except maybe the exceedingly rare Hurst-built Hemi and 440 race cars.

And styling is subjective. Back in the 60's and 70's nobody thought any more of those designs than people think of current ones now. Rarely is a car built to become a classic; it happens retroactively. Lord knows what cars will look like in 2052, but whatever that year brings, people may just look back on the plebian cars of 2012 with fondness...
2015 Mustang GT Premium - 5.0, 6-speed, Guard Green - too much awesome for one car

1988 5.0 Thunderbird :birdsmily: SOLD SEPT 11 2010: TC front clip/hood ♣ Body & paint completed Oct 2007 ♣ 3.55 TC rear end and front brakes ♣ TC interior ♣ CHE rear control arms (adjustable lowers) ♣ 2001 Bullitt springs ♣ Energy suspension poly busings ♣ Kenne Brown subframe connectors ♣ CWE engine mounts ♣ Thundercat sequential turn signals ♣ Explorer overhead console (temp/compass display) ♣ 2.25" off-road dual exhaust ♣ T-5 transmission swap completed Jan 2009 ♣

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #19
i'm afraid to see what cars will look like in 2052.. i forsee a bunch of retarded looking electric vehicles like GM's concept car.. i forget what it was called, but it was an ugly, wannabe sports car looking high tech.. 'thing'
ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #20
Quote
but it was an ugly, wannabe sports car looking high tech.. 'thing'
...Which is probably what the original owner of a Stutz Bearcat or Cord 810 would have said about a '68 Chevelle, or '64 GTO, or '69 Torino, or '68 Charger, etc had they shown such a "concept" at the 1929 auto shows...
2015 Mustang GT Premium - 5.0, 6-speed, Guard Green - too much awesome for one car

1988 5.0 Thunderbird :birdsmily: SOLD SEPT 11 2010: TC front clip/hood ♣ Body & paint completed Oct 2007 ♣ 3.55 TC rear end and front brakes ♣ TC interior ♣ CHE rear control arms (adjustable lowers) ♣ 2001 Bullitt springs ♣ Energy suspension poly busings ♣ Kenne Brown subframe connectors ♣ CWE engine mounts ♣ Thundercat sequential turn signals ♣ Explorer overhead console (temp/compass display) ♣ 2.25" off-road dual exhaust ♣ T-5 transmission swap completed Jan 2009 ♣

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #21
this thing takes the cake on ugliest thing i've ever seen.. some people may think it's 'cool' or 'neat'.. but i see no appeal what-so-ever :barf:

ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #22
or, you could get a gear splitter, giving you 3 overdrive gears, or switch to a higher gear. Just because you can't get good mileage out of a car doesn't mean no one can.

If you remember right, our cougars and birds were cutting edge and thinking outside the box when they came out.
Quote from: jcassity
I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
Hooligans! 
1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
1986 cougar.
lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #23
Quote from: Haystack;377751
or, you could get a gear splitter, giving you 3 overdrive gears, or switch to a higher gear. Just because you can't get good mileage out of a car doesn't mean no one can.

If you remember right, our cougars and birds were cutting edge and thinking outside the box when they came out.

the mileage isn't a concern, so a gear splitter would be a complete waste of my money. that i could be spending on something i actually do want.. likke putting it towards a lemco for my black car ;) .. the car is all about power, nothing else.. i don't even care how it takes corners, it's built to go balls to the wall in a straight line.. it's mainly a streetable race car with a full interior
ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #24
To me, streetable means you could drive it on the freeway without doing 50 or blowing up the motor, in most places, pass emissions. A race car you can drive on the street is much different from a streetable car.
Quote from: jcassity
I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
Hooligans! 
1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
1986 cougar.
lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #25
she passed emissions ;) .. LEGALLY! i can do 65 on the highway, but i don't like cruising with the RPM's above 3k.. but that's not an issue, as the car doesn't see the highway, ever.. never will, as i will never let the car go.. there's too much blood, sweat and tears of joy wrapped into the car to ever let someone else even drive it.. plus it's the first car i've ever owned that went under 10.0, so it's sentimental value in a dollar amount is more than bill gates could afford.. it's my baby

but it's very streetable, or else i would have made a couple changes including gearing and psi to make it that way
ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #26
Every streetable car I have seen people drove for hours straight on the freeway. Maybe that's why people are buying the newer "retro" cars that get good gas mileage. They musy actually own newer cars to drive them.
Quote from: jcassity
I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
Hooligans! 
1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
1986 cougar.
lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #27
i could, but i won't.. no need to
ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #28
I don't really see the point.  247hp for a 3600 lbs car, undoubtedly with small low end torque sounds like a poor performer and a waste of effort to me.  300 hp and 30mpg sounds like a tough combo to beat.  The 247hp would have to be around 38mpg and $5k less to draw away from the current base model, and I don't see that happening.

Edit- in retrospect, this has to be a replacement for the 3.7L with a ~300+hp Ecoboost four cylinder with 35mpg and about 100lbs less curb weight. No way they are keeping both. They will soon learn that with the Explorer.

Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

Reply #29
Its just like back in the 80's with the 4 cylinder turbo, v-6 and v-8 in the cougarbirds.

Honestly, I think the i-4 is to perform in other car classes. For some reason kids are inlove with turbo 4's.
Quote from: jcassity
I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
Hooligans! 
1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
1986 cougar.
lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com