2015 Mustang Official Power and Weight Numbers

[Sulaco]

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

That...doesn't mean anything.

Whether you anecdotally don't or not is irrelevant, the MSRP and invoice of the car was still in the low to mid $30s.

 

[Zivic]

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.

exactly.. nothing that special. I like the addition of the 4 cylinder turbo, but 310 isn't anything to get excited about.

 

[hans007]

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.

Except an evo gets like 15mpg. Its special when you can still get decent fuel economy.

 

[LTC8K6]

That power and torque from the 2.3L will likely look very special if the mileage is impressive...

 

[LTC8K6]

The 4,000 pound AWD MKC is only 18/21/26mpg with the 2.3EB engine with a 285hp rating.

 

[NutBucket]

Except an evo gets like 15mpg. Its special when you can still get decent fuel economy.

Shocking! You get bad MPG when you hammer the throttle.....

 

[soccerballtux]

Except an evo gets like 15mpg. Its special when you can still get decent fuel economy.

+1 that's what has me excite for this

 

[Topweasel]

As an owner of 2.0 EB it will only get you great gas mileage if you let it. If i am cruising at 60 I can average 38 to almost 40mpg. At 70 its closer to its rated 33 at 31. But if I have any fun with it, it will drop like a rock and even managed one tank where I averaged 17mpg. The 2.3 I think will be a lot of fun to drive, but people hooning it, will not be getting great gas mileage.

 

[Imported]

As an owner of 2.0 EB it will only get you great gas mileage if you let it. If i am cruising at 60 I can average 38 to almost 40mpg. At 70 its closer to its rated 33 at 31. But if I have any fun with it, it will drop like a rock and even managed one tank where I averaged 17mpg. The 2.3 I think will be a lot of fun to drive, but people hooning it, will not be getting great gas mileage.

I notice the same in my BMW (N20). It'll get good gas mileage if I want to.. but once I start having fun (which is almost always) it drops to under 20mpg.

 

[exdeath]

What's your mileage in the Cobra?
Me: 9 in boost 20 or so out of boost
So what do you average you think?
Me: 9

 

[Zivic]

What's your mileage in the Cobra?
Me: 9 in boost 20 or so out of boost
So what do you average you think?
Me: 9

I've seen 8 in my Z... highest with the turbos I have seen is 27....

I average a solid 20, so you definitely have me there

 

[DaTT]

What's your mileage in the Cobra?
Me: 9 in boost 20 or so out of boost
So what do you average you think?
Me: 9

My typical response is, "Who cares"?

 

[Zivic]

Except an evo gets like 15mpg. Its special when you can still get decent fuel economy.

My evo with a stock engine with larger turbo on e85 will pull 15 mpg @ 33 psi (267hp/liter)... I generally average 13 or so, but have seen 17 on a few tanks

 

[Midwayman]

What's your mileage in the Cobra?
Me: 9 in boost 20 or so out of boost
So what do you average you think?
Me: 9

Heh. That's what my c5 FRC got on road courses. At least according to the MID anyways.

 

[Topweasel]

I notice the same in my BMW (N20). It'll get good gas mileage if I want to.. but once I start having fun (which is almost always) it drops to under 20mpg.

Coming from a bunch of V6's and one high RPM NA I4, I would say that the turbo 4 is even more Jekyll and Hyde than most. My NA I4 would get 32MPG if I let it, but I drove it insanely silly and it would still net me like 23-24MPG. If I went all out wherever I went in my Fusion, I am pretty sure I could kick it into the single digits. It's also but loads of fun. It begs me to wind it up faster when I am having fun, but even during normal driving, if I am not actively watching myself it will take a large hit.

I think it will be easier and nicer to people trying to have fun with the Mustang over the V6. But I think if people treat it like V6. They will get mid 90's V8 fuel economy.

 

[Imported]

Heh. That's what my c5 FRC got on road courses. At least according to the MID anyways.

Track days are always hard. My G35 would be in the single digits easily. Sucked going in with a full tank then having to refill at the track's station for like $8/gallon half-way through.

 

[SearchMaster]

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.

400 will likely be a stretch. In the Focus ST (2.0EB), an off-the-shelf stage I tune adds about 10% whp. Stage II is needed to get 20%+...but some are seeing 50-90% gains with turbo swaps (which is not easy given the turbo's integration).

So 350 is likely a simple tune, 400 may require more mods especially if the IC is as weak as the 2.0's.

 

[SearchMaster]

I think it will be easier and nicer to people trying to have fun with the Mustang over the V6. But I think if people treat it like V6. They will get mid 90's V8 fuel economy.

That's why I like a turbo engine - great fuel economy if that's what you want, or great performance if that's what you want. Just not at the same time.

 

[Topweasel]

That's why I like a turbo engine - great fuel economy if that's what you want, or great performance if that's what you want. Just not at the same time.

Exactly, anyone looking at a Ford I tell them I love my Fusion and its 2.0 EB, but it really isn't eco/boost its more like Eco or Boost.

 

[KentState]

What's your mileage in the Cobra?
Me: 9 in boost 20 or so out of boost
So what do you average you think?
Me: 9

Lifetime average according to OnStar is 15mpg. Basically 20 out of boost and maybe 5 in boost.

On the topic of the post, I'm surprised that the Mustang didn't go down in weight as I thought they made it smaller. The '16 Camaro will be out next year and is expected to decrease in weight since it will be based on the ATS/CTS platform. The weight on the new CTS already went down, while the car going up in size.

 

[Topweasel]

Lifetime average according to OnStar is 15mpg. Basically 20 out of boost and maybe 5 in boost.

On the topic of the post, I'm surprised that the Mustang didn't go down in weight as I thought they made it smaller. The '16 Camaro will be out next year and is expected to decrease in weight since it will be based on the ATS/CTS platform. The weight on the new CTS already went down, while the car going up in size.

It's all about being built for the latest round of crash tests and adding a heavier suspension. I think the also upped the rigidness of the chassis itself which would add some weight.

Both the Camaro and the Challanger need new chassis because the ones they are on are woefully unprepared for their target market. Hell everyone keeps calling the Challanger a boat because of it. I still wouldn't expect Camaro to be lighter than the Stang with it's new one. Well not dramatically lighter.

The stripper track Camaro Z28 is still 100 pounds heavier than the GT. Though looking at the ATS maybe it will be a lot lighter. Its still going to be mid sized sedan heavy but on the bottom of the spectrum and not at the top for the Mustang. Though car and driver seems to think it will only lose 300-400 which would put it on par with the Stang. Not sure why it would gain so much weight on the ATS. We will have wait and see on that.

 

[LTC8K6]

"Makowski said the new 2.0 has a new block, redesigned cylinder head, Borg-Warner twin scroll turbocharger, revised fuel injectors and higher compression ratio. It weighs about 10 pounds less than the current engine."

Is the 2.3eb based on the old 2.0eb or the redesigned 2.0eb in the new Edge?

I think it is based on the new engine due to the twin scroll turbo. Only the new 2.0eb in the edge is twin scroll, right?

 

[KentState]

It's all about being built for the latest round of crash tests and adding a heavier suspension. I think the also upped the rigidness of the chassis itself which would add some weight.

Both the Camaro and the Challanger need new chassis because the ones they are on are woefully unprepared for their target market. Hell everyone keeps calling the Challanger a boat because of it. I still wouldn't expect Camaro to be lighter than the Stang with it's new one. Well not dramatically lighter.

The stripper track Camaro Z28 is still 100 pounds heavier than the GT. Though looking at the ATS maybe it will be a lot lighter. Its still going to be mid sized sedan heavy but on the bottom of the spectrum and not at the top for the Mustang. Though car and driver seems to think it will only lose 300-400 which would put it on par with the Stang. Not sure why it would gain so much weight on the ATS. We will have wait and see on that.

The current Camaro has a base weight of 3,935 lbs for the 2SS, 3,700 lbs for the 2LS, and Z28's at 3,837 lb for comparison. Drop 300-400lbs off that and you are under the Mustang I4/V8 weights by a few hundred pounds. Not a lot lighter, but enough to show progress.

 

[Railgun]

The A45 engine cranks out more with less displacement...in a lighter weight car...that's AWD.

Yes, it's more expensive, but we're not talking about price so...

 

[Ferzerp]

The A45 engine cranks out more with less displacement...in a lighter weight car...that's AWD.

Yes, it's more expensive, but we're not talking about price so...

Oh yes. That ever important HP/L number :eyeroll: