2015 Mustang Official Power and Weight Numbers

[*kjm]

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.

Why mess up the truck....
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-Racing...pt=Race_Car_Parts&hash=item2c877f0ace&vxp=mtr

or look in the junk yards last I read they have sold over 400,000 trucks there have to be some that were totaled.

 

[NutBucket]

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.

Simple. Traditional Mustang buyers want a V8. It's the same reason they scoffed the SVO years ago yet, IIRC, that car was faster than a GT of the same era?

 

[xBiffx]

do you even special editions bro?

:biggrin:

I will be sure and put proper badging on it.

 

[xBiffx]

Why mess up the truck....
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-Racing...pt=Race_Car_Parts&hash=item2c877f0ace&vxp=mtr

or look in the junk yards last I read they have sold over 400,000 trucks there have to be some that were totaled.

You're taking the fun out of it.

 

[xBiffx]

Simple. Traditional Mustang buyers want a V8. It's the same reason they scoffed the SVO years ago yet, IIRC, that car was faster than a GT of the same era?

They said the same thing about truck owners too. Things change. Granted some things remain the same. :\

But they are already offering a V6 and a turbocharged four cylinder. Why not just use the twin turbo V6 they already have and works?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Simple. Traditional Mustang buyers want a V8. It's the same reason they scoffed the SVO years ago yet, IIRC, that car was faster than a GT of the same era?

There's also the fact that the V8 GT came in around $10,000 and the SVO was pushing $16,000 at the time. That's a big jump in price for the SVO.

ZV

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

Because it would be more powerful than the V8

 

[NutBucket]

There's also the fact that the V8 GT came in around $10,000 and the SVO was pushing $16,000 at the time. That's a big jump in price for the SVO.

ZV

It's only money

 

[NutBucket]

They said the same thing about truck owners too. Things change. Granted some things remain the same. :\

If I was in the market for a Mustang you're damned right I want a V8. At the lowest level a turbo V6 will never sound as good as a V8 with a nice set of headers and Flowmasters...or cut outs for that matter.

 

[Knowing]

They said the same thing about truck owners too. Things change. Granted some things remain the same. :\

But they are already offering a V6 and a turbocharged four cylinder. Why not just use the twin turbo V6 they already have and works?

Because it would be too similar to the v8s. The few people who want one that bad will build it.

 

[xBiffx]

If I was in the market for a Mustang you're damned right I want a V8. At the lowest level a turbo V6 will never sound as good as a V8 with a nice set of headers and Flowmasters...or cut outs for that matter.

Not only will you sound good, you'll look good in my rear view mirror too!

 

[NutBucket]

Where's my blower....

 

[NutBucket]

It'd be akin to putting a turbo motor in a Ferrari. It's blasphemous!

 

[Topweasel]

It'd be akin to putting a turbo motor in a Ferrari. It's blasphemous!

You mean like the next California and 458. Or maybe like the most beloved Ferrari, the F40?

 

[NutBucket]

I love the F40...but it's just not the same! And if turbos were so great for Ferrari why are the F50 and Enzo NA?

I guess I'm just a traditionalist sometimes.

 

[jlee]

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.

Heh, if my (2.0l 4cyl) injectors ran at 100% duty cycle, I'd go through 10 gallons of fuel in less than 8 minutes.

 

[xBiffx]

I love the F40...but it's just not the same! And if turbos were so great for Ferrari why are the F50 and Enzo NA?

I guess I'm just a traditionalist sometimes.

Its okay to be old school. I understand the position. But I'm a complete nerd and love me some technology. :biggrin:

 

[Topweasel]

I love the F40...but it's just not the same! And if turbos were so great for Ferrari why are the F50 and Enzo NA?

I guess I'm just a traditionalist sometimes.

Probably because Ferrari more than any other manufacturer integrates tech from F1 into their cars. F1 at the time of the F40 was filled with Turbo's so it makes sense if they were trying to create a "F1 car for the roads" so they used Turbo's for the F40. Same thing with the 458 and California. They have been using V6T's in F1 for a total of 1 year and now they are developing 2 FI cars. The F50 came out after F1 had gone back to NA engines.

 

[soccerballtux]

Maybe with extensive mods.

265hp 3800lbs vs 414hp 3700lbs

it's the torque and gearing. common knowledge among those [who read bimmerfest] to whom it's common that it's faster from 60-100. makes m3's at the track mad...below 60, yes, m3 faster

also DPF and EGR delete and urea additive removal and you'll get 38mpg on the highway

which is why the EPA hates deisel

 

[LTC8K6]

It's apparently not even faster than the 335i...C&D numbers

The quarter-mile happens in 14.2 seconds at 100 mph. 335d

Standing ¼-mile: 13.6 sec @ 106 mph 335i

Standing ¼-mile: 12.6 sec @ 113 mph M3

 

[LTC8K6]

The M3 is much quicker 60-100 than the 335d.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2009-bmw-335d.pdf

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2008-bmw-m32008-bmw-m3-initial-test-sheet.pdf

 

[Zenmervolt]

it's the torque and gearing. common knowledge among those [who read bimmerfest] to whom it's common that it's faster from 60-100. makes m3's at the track mad...below 60, yes, m3 faster

I'll buy that it's faster if you don't downshift from the top gear, but that's not a scenario that would ever come up on a track (unless the driver was a complete and utter moron).

As long as the M3 driver kept their car in the right gear, they would run lazy circles around a 335d on the track.

ZV