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