• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2015 Mustang Leaked

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LTC8K6 said:
The 2.0L ecoboost is at the mid 200's already, so the 2.3L should be well above that. Wiki lists it at 276hp, which is disappointing if true. The 300ft lbs of torque will be nice.
Click to expand...

wikipedia's source in the engine article (an edmunds blog post) claims to expect 330 hp. wikipedia's mustang article says 305 hp, but doesn't seem to be sourced.
 
I have no doubt it could get to that 300hp range, I'm a bit curious however as to why they'd have 2 engines at roughly the same power output. I can't imagine the turbo 4 getting remarkably better mileage than the 6, which already gets like 31 highway in the current model.

I do understand it makes more sense in other markets where taxation can occur on engine displacement, and emissions. In those markets I'd expect some lower power variants though for mpg improvements.


Really looking forward to when they release some more details on it!
 
Ferzerp said:
The pdf available on media.ford.com cites ">305 hp" for the i4


http://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/asset.download.document.pdf.html/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2015_Specs/Mustang_Specs_USA.pdf
Click to expand...

time to edit wikipedia!

edit: 275 is what the 2.3 makes in the MKC. that's about what mazda was getting for the MZR DISI already (274). is the EB I4 a derivation (or maybe carryover) of the MZR engine that ford has been using for the past 10 years?

Demo24 said:
I have no doubt it could get to that 300hp range, I'm a bit curious however as to why they'd have 2 engines at roughly the same power output. I can't imagine the turbo 4 getting remarkably better mileage than the 6, which already gets like 31 highway in the current model.

I do understand it makes more sense in other markets where taxation can occur on engine displacement, and emissions. In those markets I'd expect some lower power variants though for mpg improvements.


Really looking forward to when they release some more details on it!
Click to expand...
the coyote and the EB V6 make about the same power in the F150. the turbo 4 should have more available torque low in the rpm range so will probably be a bit more fun to drive than the V6.
 
Last edited:
ElFenix said:
the coyote and the EB V6 make about the same power in the F150. the turbo 4 should have more available torque low in the rpm range so will probably be a bit more fun to drive than the V6.
Click to expand...

Plus it will be way superior if you want to mod the car for more power. If I were to buy one, I'd probably get the turbo i4 over the v6.
 
A well-informed "little bird" told me that several V8 and TT-4 mules have already made their way to some of the more proficient tuning houses, and alongside the official launch we'll see a lot of action from that market as well.
 
JulesMaximus said:
Nope. I test drove a Focus Titanium two summers ago and they put me off so bad that I didn't even bother driving the new Fusion before buying my Camry even though I really like the car. Are you listening Ford? 😡

Buying the Toyota was hassle free and there was zero pressure.

There is no excuse for the bullshit they put you through at some of these places.
Click to expand...

I was wanting a F150 and after going to 2 Ford dealerships and their nonsense, I went across town and bought my truck somewhere else.

...it was the same for Explorer. We got treated bad so we got a 4Runner instead. The Toyota dealership was excellent in service, price, negotiation of price, and ease of paperwork.
 
I like that they've regressed to the 90's/early 2000's proportions. The car is no longer comically oversized. The 2005 Mustang looked like it was designed by someone outside the US as an insult.

LOL LOOK AT ME, I'M GIANT FAT AMERICAN IN GIANT FAT CAR. I LIKE NEW THINGS THAT LOOK OLD, NOW TAKE ME TO HOTDOG HAMBURGER STAND LOL!

However, the front end of that car is a fucking travesty. Ford: Boldly making every car look like a squinty-eyed retard.
 
Its sleaker and pays more homage to its roots. that being said the rocker switches inside make it appear as a rip off from the GTR/991. The interior plastic use is still pretty rampant. Wishing it would put some better materials inside but honestly with a next gen rear setup (IRS) im waiting to get my mits on one to drive and see how it stacks up.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Burnouts are illegal, so I'd be surprised to see such on a factory stock street car.
Click to expand...

Moving violations of the law is the responsibility of the driver not the manufacturer.

Going above the speed limit is illegal too but yet every manufacturer makes a car capable of breaking the law.

Ford has stated that the never before offered feature will appeal to the "kid" in us. I think a burnout assist is a pretty good guess. Anybody have any other guesses??

We'll find out next month :biggrin:
 
Except that a burnout control would be specifically designed and intended to break the law. The insurance companies will love it the first time a 17 year old loses control using the burnout feature.
 
Rapid acceleration is against the law in some places, even if you don't break the speed limit — and launch control is on plenty of cars.
 
Burnout control and launch control would be classified as the same type of add-on for a car; only for use in a controlled environment. If its used outside, law enforcement is allowed to ticket you.

The real discussion is more about when idiots will begin using BC out on the street and acting like their called and what is the Police is going to do to prevent other non-idiot drivers from being stuck in precarious positions.
 
nerp said:
Rapid acceleration is against the law in some places, even if you don't break the speed limit — and launch control is on plenty of cars.
Click to expand...

Launch control is not specifically designed so it will break the law, though.

A burnout control on a street car could not be used at all without breaking the law.

Street cars are not designed for the drag strip, even though they can be raced there.

A warning to only use it on the drag strip would do nothing for liability on what is clearly a street car, imo.

I don't entirely dismiss the idea that it is a burnout control feature, but it would really surprise me to see a car mfg add it to a street model.
 
I still don't see the difference between a line-lock and a car that goes faster than ~70mph, though. The presence of the former does not cause you to break the law during normal driving, just like the ability to go faster than the speed limit doesn't.

It would be fairly brilliant on Ford's part. It would cost them nothing to implement, it would not hurt the car, and it would make customers/potential customers say 'oooh, that's awesome, way to go, Ford!'
 
LTC8K6 said:
Launch control is not specifically designed so it will break the law, though.

A burnout control on a street car could not be used at all without breaking the law.

Street cars are not designed for the drag strip, even though they can be raced there.

A warning to only use it on the drag strip would do nothing for liability on what is clearly a street car, imo.

I don't entirely dismiss the idea that it is a burnout control feature, but it would really surprise me to see a car mfg add it to a street model.
Click to expand...
Man, it's like you are reading it, but not really getting it.
 
phucheneh said:
I still don't see the difference between a line-lock and a car that goes faster than ~70mph, though. The presence of the former does not cause you to break the law during normal driving, just like the ability to go faster than the speed limit doesn't.

It would be fairly brilliant on Ford's part. It would cost them nothing to implement, it would not hurt the car, and it would make customers/potential customers say 'oooh, that's awesome, way to go, Ford!'
Click to expand...

It will make Ralph Nader shout and point. 😀

Can go faster than 70. Can also go slower than 70. Can accelerate to 60 in 4 seconds. Can also accelerate to 60 in 8 or 10 seconds. Can do doughnuts. Can also not do doughnuts.

With the steering wheel I can weave in and out of traffic and change lanes for no apparent reason, and cut people off repeatedly. I can also drive properly with the steering wheel.

Burnout control can only do a burnout. That's it's only purpose. It only does that one thing. It's sole purpose is to deliberately break the traction of the drive wheels.

A burnout control would almost certainly bypass the mandated stability control. Seems hard to believe the government nanny will be happy with that.

In reading the original article, I can't see where the author gets the impression that the feature has anything to do with the powertrain.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1088965_secret-feature-on-2015-ford-mustang-will-be-an-oem-first
 
foghorn67 said:
Man, it's like you are reading it, but not really getting it.
Click to expand...

It'll be alright. I've been wrong many times before. It doesn't hurt much. It's only a thread in an internet forum. 😀

I'll get over it if the 2015 Mustang has a burnout control. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top