2015 Mustang Official Power and Weight Numbers

[Wingznut]

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

Nobody ever said it was "ever important." Many people find the data of getting more from less interesting, even if you don't. That doesn't make their opinion less valid, or worthy of an "eyeroll."

 

[Railgun]

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

'Cause you didn't take my post out of context at all there...

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Not sure why the turbo 4 is needed? The v6 probably got just as good mpg and power. The mustang should have gotten a eb 6 tbh. The mustang is a pig. It's hard to call any car flirting with 4k pounds a sports car. I have no doubt my fiesta st with 200+ lbs of torque and weighing 2700lbs is a much more fun car to drive and at 15k dollars less.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not sure why the turbo 4 is needed? The v6 probably got just as good mpg and power. The mustang should have gotten a eb 6 tbh. The mustang is a pig. It's hard to call any car flirting with 4k pounds a sports car. I have no doubt my fiesta st with 200+ lbs of torque and weighing 2700lbs is a much more fun car to drive and at 15k dollars less.

The V6 probably has less bottom end torque than the 2.3T, and a worse torque curve.

 

[Topweasel]

Well the EB 2.3 will have better EPA rating. Real life is probably in the V6's favor, but the low end torque and the engine feel will be very much in the 2.3's favor. I think the EB will actually be the more enjoyable of the 3 engines. It'll always be acting like you're at 9/10 and will be a lot less intimidating when it is actually driven at 9/10.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Nobody ever said it was "ever important." Many people find the data of getting more from less interesting, even if you don't. That doesn't make their opinion less valid, or worthy of an "eyeroll."

displacement isn't always the best measure of efficiency. how big is the engine (physically)? how much does it weigh? how durable is it?

the 5.0L BMW M5 V10 was lauded as an excellent engine. in the same time period, you had the 7.0L V8 in the C6 Z06. both put out ~500hp - but one had significantly more torque, was significantly lighter, and physically more compact.

so no, displacement isn't always the best basis on which to compare engines, because it can be very misleading as to arguably more important performance characteristics.

 

[Wingznut]

displacement isn't always the best measure of efficiency. how big is the engine (physically)? how much does it weigh? how durable is it?

the 5.0L BMW M5 V10 was lauded as an excellent engine. in the same time period, you had the 7.0L V8 in the C6 Z06. both put out ~500hp - but one had significantly more torque, was significantly lighter, and physically more compact.

so no, displacement isn't always the best basis on which to compare engines, because it can be very misleading as to arguably more important performance characteristics.

Again, nobody here is saying it's the "best" measure of anything. Seriously, nobody. Not once.

As a matter of fact, there is no one single "best" statistic.

 

[Topweasel]

displacement isn't always the best measure of efficiency. how big is the engine (physically)? how much does it weigh? how durable is it?

the 5.0L BMW M5 V10 was lauded as an excellent engine. in the same time period, you had the 7.0L V8 in the C6 Z06. both put out ~500hp - but one had significantly more torque, was significantly lighter, and physically more compact.

so no, displacement isn't always the best basis on which to compare engines, because it can be very misleading as to arguably more important performance characteristics.

It was the second time that poster had made a comment like that to an HP/L comment. The other one for 1.3L NA that made 250HP, stating that we could get 1000HP out of Liter if we got it to go 30000 RPM. There is some information and usefulness to be gained from HP/L. Specially when you are using as that particular user would put it "unobtanunium" to make a consumer engine get to 30K RPM. To keep it's displacement low while keeping power up and keeping it reliable is a major undertaking.

As for the BMW and the LS7. One was an evolution and the other was major what we hoped was going to be a big step in seeing F1 engine development find it's way into consumer engines. Sadly BMW left F1 and killed that engine line before they made a follow up. But it was one of the first times since Ferrari's very early days where they used an F1 derived engine in the consumer car. Also the V10 offered a rare driving experience.

 

[LTC8K6]

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/open-ears-ecoboost-powered-2015-mustang-200205898.html

Sounds pretty nice.

 

[soccerballtux]

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.

that's why I like a diesel engine. great fuel economy no matter what you want. great performance no matter what you want.

speaking of the 335d here, of course; faster than m3...

 

[overst33r]

speaking of the 335d here, of course; faster than m3...

Maybe with extensive mods.

265hp 3800lbs vs 414hp 3700lbs

 

[hans007]

that's why I like a diesel engine. great fuel economy no matter what you want. great performance no matter what you want.

speaking of the 335d here, of course; faster than m3...

i've driven a friends 335d e90. it felt torquey obviously , but it didnt feel sporty and it wasn't much faster than say a e90 328i in measured tests.

the newer turbo 4 f30 cars feel sportier and actaully are faster, and only get slightly less mpg.
i mean with diesel cars you really are giving up that sportiness and speed for your mpg. no free lunches no matter what people say about diesel "feeling fast" , i think it just feels different.

 

[Wingznut]

that's why I like a diesel engine. great fuel economy no matter what you want. great performance no matter what you want.

speaking of the 335d here, of course; faster than m3...

In what way is the 335d faster than an M3?

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

36% of Mustangs sold in 2012 had a manual, so no it's not hard to find a manual Mustang

 

[Midwayman]

In what way is the 335d faster than an M3?

In free fall? Its about 300lbs heavier with the same shape....

 

[LTC8K6]

In free fall? Its about 300lbs heavier with the same shape....

Well, they would fall at the same rate, so they are the same speed in free fall. :biggrin:

 

[Midwayman]

Well, they would fall at the same rate, so they are the same speed in free fall. :biggrin:

You're thinking of a vacuum. Which falls faster in air, a balloon or a bowling ball?

 

[PhoKingGuy]

i've driven a friends 335d e90. it felt torquey obviously , but it didnt feel sporty and it wasn't much faster than say a e90 328i in measured tests.

the newer turbo 4 f30 cars feel sportier and actaully are faster, and only get slightly less mpg.
i mean with diesel cars you really are giving up that sportiness and speed for your mpg. no free lunches no matter what people say about diesel "feeling fast" , i think it just feels different.

QFT, any N20 BMW is deceptively quick. So much so the N55 isn't even really necessary anymore. My x1 x28 is fast enough that I don't miss my 335i all that much, 30 mpg combined up from 21 helps with that quite a bit.

N20 + ZF 8 speed is a lovely combination.

 

[LTC8K6]

You're thinking of a vacuum. Which falls faster in air, a balloon or a bowling ball?

Not sure what that has to do with dropping two similar weight and same aerodynamic shape BMWs in free fall...

 

[Midwayman]

Not sure what that has to do with dropping two similar weight and same aerodynamic shape BMWs in free fall...

Mass matters in an atmosphere.

where

V_t is terminal velocity,
m is the mass of the falling object,
g is the acceleration due to gravity,
C_d is the drag coefficient,
\rho is the density of the fluid through which the object is falling, and
A is the projected area of the object.

If everything else remains the same, V_t increases as m increases.

 

[LTC8K6]

The weight difference between a 2011 M3 and a 2011 335d is apparently around 100 pounds, looking at reviews. Insignificant, with both cars around 3800 pounds.

Even a 300 pound difference is well under 10%.

 

[Railgun]

E92 335d

This model has a frontal area of 2.0800 m2, its drag area is 0.6240 m2 and the drag coefficient is 0.3

E92 M3

This model has a 0.31 drag coefficient, its drag area being 0.6727 m2 and the frontal area - 2.1700 m2

Source

This is assuming of course you have the car falling face first.

/ot

 

[xBiffx]

I'll buy a 2015 base Mustang and then drop the 3.5 EB from my F-150 in it to see what happens. Guarantee it fits. Guarantee its got way more torque than the planned EB and the 5.0 Coyote. Why Ford didn't do this is anyone's guess but I'm also willing to bet the Ford will hate me for it.

 

[Knowing]

The Camaro v6 is 150lbs more than the Mustang and I hear they're considering a turbo 4 as well.

The twin scroll is for response, having two volutes rather than more cross section isn't going to give you more power - though it could give you slightly more torque at a lower rpm. It'll be interesting to see if they went with a cast manifold and what hot side pattern they used.

 

[ElFenix]

I'll buy a 2015 base Mustang and then drop the 3.5 EB from my F-150 in it to see what happens. Guarantee it fits. Guarantee its got way more torque than the planned EB and the 5.0 Coyote. Why Ford didn't do this is anyone's guess but I'm also willing to bet the Ford will hate me for it.

do you even special editions bro?