2015 Mustang Official Power and Weight Numbers

[ballmode]

http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news...015-mustang-horsepower-ratings-ecoboost-v6-gt

"The GT, which uses a rowdier version of the outgoing 5.0-liter Coyote V8, now has 435 hp and 400 lb-ft of twist, up 15 hp and 10 lb-ft from its predecessor. The compression ratio is 11:1. Roll a base 2015 6MT Mustang GT fastback onto the scales and it'll show 3705 lbs. That's an 87-pound increase over the 2014. With the new automatic, the Mustang GT weighs 3729 pounds, a 54-lb increase.

In EcoBoost guise, the 2015 Mustang offers 310 hp and 320 lb-ft torque from its 2.3-liter turbocharged four-cylinder on 93-octane gasoline. It's a twin-scroll turbo—the first ever used on a Ford. The compression ratio on the turbo 'Stang is 10.5:1. Whether all that will be enough to win over Pony purists is still to be determined.

And what does the EcoBoost weigh? In base trim with a stick, 3532 lbs. That's 36 lb more than a V6-equipped 2014 car. The EcoBoost automatic weighs 3524 lbs. That's a 6-lb increase vs a comparable 2014 V6 automatic. "

 

[Tweak155]

Crazy the power they get out of a 4cyl...

 

[satyajitmenon]

Crazy the power they get out of a 4cyl...

Yeah. That much out of a 2.3 is pretty good for factory specs. Can't wait to see what it'll do with a tune. Although I get the feeling it's pushing the limit already.

FWIW, the BMW N20B20 (2.0 4-cyl turbo) puts out about 240hp/258lb-ft according to factory specs, which aftermarket tuners have easily taken up to ~300hp. And I think Audi 2.0Ts have also been taken to similar levels with a tune.

While it's great that they managed to keep the weight gain under check, it would have been nice if the incoming models weighed less than the outgoing ones.

Wonder if they'll sell a stripped down version with a track pack for the EcoBoost.

 

[Ferzerp]

While it's great that they managed to keep the weight gain under check, it would have been nice if the incoming models weighed less than the outgoing ones.

$20k car. Added weight from IRS, and they kept the weight nearly exactly the same while the dimensions barely changed. What more do you expect? The Mustang isn't a $150k sports car.

 

[Imported]

Yeah. That much out of a 2.3 is pretty good for factory specs. Can't wait to see what it'll do with a tune. Although I get the feeling it's pushing the limit already.

FWIW, the BMW N20B20 (2.0 4-cyl turbo) puts out about 240hp/258lb-ft according to factory specs, which aftermarket tuners have easily taken up to ~300hp. And I think Audi 2.0Ts have also been taken to similar levels with a tune.

While it's great that they managed to keep the weight gain under check, it would have been nice if the incoming models weighed less than the outgoing ones.

Wonder if they'll sell a stripped down version with a track pack for the EcoBoost.

The N20 is underrated too.. its pushing 240 at the wheels on some dynos.

Agreed on the last point. A stripped down version with track pack for the EcoBoost would be fun.

 

[ballmode]

I'm all about seeing how this twin scroll turbo can yield results.

Maybe people can start putting that turbo on the 2.3L Focus hatch and get better #'s.

The weight bothers me, but the M235i got a bump up to 3400lbs so they are simliar.

The EB (ecoboost) Mustang I've priced comes to 29k msrp, this is the base ecoboost with performance package (oil cooler/intercooler/beefier radiator/suspension/4pot brakes/wheels/tires etc/sways) with the cloth recaros.

If I could get that car for 26-27k I would pick that over a WRX or even a used 370z

 

[Yuriman]

Like the looks a lot, not impressed by the specs.

S2000 was producing 250HP 14 years ago from a N/A 2.0, nevermind what a turbo adds, and it wasn't an expensive car. Mustang is heavy, and you'll probably have a hard time finding it in anything other than automatic.

Lose 500lbs and I might be interested. It's heavier than my Toyota Avalon and the V6 produces little more power.

 

[exar333]

$20k car. Added weight from IRS, and they kept the weight nearly exactly the same while the dimensions barely changed. What more do you expect? The Mustang isn't a $150k sports car.

This.

They managed to offset both the weight and added cost (albeit not huge) of IRS. I would LOVE an aluminum Boss302 or something with a good 200-300lbs less weight.

 

[exdeath]

Crazy the power they get out of a 4cyl...

Not really.

310 BHP from a turbo 4 cyls?

Been done since at least 1990.

Should check out group B rally cars, they are insane.

 

[NutBucket]

That doesn't count since they're not designed to run for 100k with minimal maintenance.

 

[exdeath]

That doesn't count since they're not designed to run for 100k with minimal maintenance.

No but MR2s and Celicas were.

Just saying 300 bhp out of a turbo motor isn't anything special.

NA 310 BHP and 2.3L would be impressive. Now that would be pretty amazing. But being around boosted cars day and night nothing making power under boost is amazing, more like duh

Willing to bet it's a 450 HP peak engine with the peak clipped by a nerf tune to make the curve appear flat.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Like the looks a lot, not impressed by the specs.

S2000 was producing 250HP 14 years ago from a N/A 2.0, nevermind what a turbo adds, and it wasn't an expensive car. Mustang is heavy, and you'll probably have a hard time finding it in anything other than automatic.

Lose 500lbs and I might be interested. It's heavier than my Toyota Avalon and the V6 produces little more power.

What? The S2000 was $40,000

 

[Midwayman]

The ecoboost version sounds like a pretty interesting car. I'd rather have the turbo over the na v6. The torque curve is going to be far better. The v8 has always struggled with fuel economy. I guess you have to decide if you really need over 400hp to have fun.

 

[Midwayman]

What? The S2000 was $40,000

MSRP $35k last year it was offered. It'd probably be 40k if it was still out today.

 

[NutBucket]

No but MR2s and Celicas were.

Just saying 300 bhp out of a turbo motor isn't anything special.

Agreed.

 

[ballmode]

What? The S2000 was $40,000

I believe in 2000 it was $32k, but 2009 it turned into 35-36k

 

[michal1980]

Like the looks a lot, not impressed by the specs.

S2000 was producing 250HP 14 years ago from a N/A 2.0, nevermind what a turbo adds, and it wasn't an expensive car. Mustang is heavy, and you'll probably have a hard time finding it in anything other than automatic.

Lose 500lbs and I might be interested. It's heavier than my Toyota Avalon and the V6 produces little more power.

s2000 produce ~160 ftlb of torque. woohoo.

and not expensive?

try 34k msrp. 6 years ago. about 37.5k in todays dollars.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/09/honda-s2000-cr-starting-at-36-300/

 

[Yuriman]

s2000 produce ~160 ftlb of torque. woohoo.

and not expensive?

try 34k msrp. 6 years ago. about 37.5k in todays dollars.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/09/honda-s2000-cr-starting-at-36-300/

It's also geared half as tall, so you're getting the same torque to the wheels. That's what gears are for.

I don't know anyone who paid 34k for one.

 

[michal1980]

It's also geared half as tall, so you're getting the same torque to the wheels. That's what gears are for.

I don't know anyone who paid 34k for one.

so dense.

 

[shabby]

Crazy the power they get out of a 4cyl...

Evo's had 300hp from a 2.0L since the 90's, so 310hp from a 2.3L isn't anything special. You'll see tunes for 350-400hp in no time once this car comes out.

 

[tweakmonkey]

what a pig.

 

[Zenmervolt]

It's also geared half as tall, so you're getting the same torque to the wheels. That's what gears are for.

Pretty sure it's not "geared half as tall" since the early versions redlined at 8,800 RPM and the Mustang sure as hell doesn't redline at 4,400 RPM.

S2000 gear ratios (2004+ ratios used because they are lower): 1st: 3.133, 2nd: 2.045, 3rd: 1.481, 4th: 1.161, 5th: 0.943, 6th: 0.763, Secondary Reduction: 1.208, FD: 4.10

Ecoboost gear ratios: 1st: 4.236, 2nd: 2.538, 3rd: 1.665, 4th: 1.238, 5th: 1.00, 6th: 0.704, FD: 3.31/3.15 (either may be optioned, I use the taller 3.15 ratio below)

This gives us overall ratios of:

----- Mustang | S2000
1st - 13.343 -- 15.517
2nd - 7.995 -- 10.129
3rd - 5.245 -- 7.340
4th - 3.900 -- 5.750
5th - 3.150 -- 4.671
6th - 2.218 -- 3.779

And peak wheel torque (neglecting drivetrain losses and measured in ft-lbs) of:

----- Mustang | S2000
1st - 4,270 -- 2,514
2nd - 2,558 -- 1,641
3rd - 1,678 -- 1,189
4th - 1,248 -- 931.5
5th - 1,008 -- 756.7
6th - 709.8 -- 612.2

If you spec out the Mustang with the 3.31 final drive, its advantage gets even larger (and the advantage gets larger still if you opt for the track pack with a 3.55 final drive).

(And to think, some folks think math isn't useful.)

ZV

 

[Yuriman]

Gear ratios

:thumbsup:

Foot in my mouth.

 

[LTC8K6]

The 2.3L EB will probably have that torque over a wide range of rpm. Heck, you'll probably have 250lbft at 1,500 revs.

 

[michal1980]

what a pig.

compared to?

a 90lb weight gain for IRS, plus better everything seems pretty fair.