2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[xNEVER-ONEx]

I think you are right. I'm actually surprised they aren't completely gimping the V6 by making it only available with a 2.73 rear axle ratio or something silly like that. I should add to my original post that the 4 will obviously return better fuel economy than the V6, but as with the weight and performance, I doubt it will be significantly better. I think Ford really wants to simply not offer the V6, but they can already see the pitchforks coming over the horizon.

To be honest, wouldn't care if they get rid of the V6. The 6 doesn't have then prestige like the V8/5.0 and until the 3.7 came around was absolutely atrocious choice on a Mustang. If the I4 offers slightly better performance and better MPG, than I rather they just offer the 4 at a similar price point.

 

[Slash]

I bet by the time the facelift rolls around Ford will have dropped it.

 

[Tornado]

I love how this thread just keeps going around in circles. Amber taillights. Dropping the V6. I4 fuel economy claims vs. reality.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

I love how this thread just keeps going around in circles. Amber taillights. Dropping the V6. I4 fuel economy claims vs. reality.

Basically all that is worth discussing at this point. Until we start getting some reviews, full pricing sheets etc, this all there is for Mustang fans.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Speculation is the best part about the internet.

 

[Omnis]

I bet by the time the facelift rolls around Ford will have dropped it.

I don't think so. The V6 is the miser's choice here, especially if fuel numbers are similar. However, if the I4 gets significantly better fuel economy-- enough to offset its price premium-- then, yes, I could see the cyclone dying.

I'm a little worried about how the turbo is going to hold up in hot weather. We like NA engines down here because the whole shebang runs so much cooler. Hopefully they'll put one of those heat extraction ducts right over the turbine. Maybe put a naca duct in front of it. I know the ecoboost radiator is bigger, but I hope it's really huge.

 

[Adamgp]

I'm betting the V6 will stick around for a while. Mainly for fleet sales and extremely budget minded buyers.

That is depending on if the turbo four runs on regular (like the V6) or requires premium gas.

 

[Omnis]

I'm betting the V6 will stick around for a while. Mainly for fleet sales and extremely budget minded buyers.

That is depending on if the turbo four runs on regular (like the V6) or requires premium gas.

Turbo runs regular iirc

 

[Adamgp]

Turbo runs regular iirc

The final specs are out?

I still think the V6 will stay around for fleet and budget minded buyers.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm a little worried about how the turbo is going to hold up in hot weather. We like NA engines down here because the whole shebang runs so much cooler. Hopefully they'll put one of those heat extraction ducts right over the turbine. Maybe put a naca duct in front of it. I know the ecoboost radiator is bigger, but I hope it's really huge.

I recall reading, and possibly even writing, that the turbo has a larger opening behind the grille for better cooling. I think it has grille shutters too, which the others don't, as that extra opening makes the space under the hood a bit more parachute-like otherwise.

 

[Omnis]

The final specs are out?

I still think the V6 will stay around for fleet and budget minded buyers.

All the ecoboost engines can run 87. I remember reading it on a spec sheet or something. Possibly the order form. I remembers specifically because I was surprised that it was going to run 87.

 

[Adamgp]

All the ecoboost engines can run 87. I remember reading it on a spec sheet or something. Possibly the order form. I remembers specifically because I was surprised that it was going to run 87.

They will run fine on regular 87, sure. Premium fuel is recommended for the 1.6, 2.0, and 3.5 EB engines to get full advertised power, according to Ford's website.

I don't doubt the 2.3 would run fine on 87. However, to get the full projected 300+hp, premium will likely be required.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

With this discussion on what RON fuel the Mustang will take, It's always struck me as odd that in Europe our standard fuel is 95 RON, while the standard fuel in America is 87 RON. Why don't you get a higher octane rating as standard? It would certainly get rid of issues like this and petrol would still be dirt cheap.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I wonder if the Mustang will have the temporary overboost feature like the Focus does? If so, it would put it at a distinct on-paper advantage (0-60, quarter mile) over the V6.

"SCRAMBLA BOOSTANO!!"

 

[CodeRedR51]

With this discussion on what RON fuel the Mustang will take, It's always struck me as odd that in Europe our standard fuel is 95 RON, while the standard fuel in America is 87 RON. Why don't you get a higher octane rating as standard? It would certainly get rid of issues like this and petrol would still be dirt cheap.

High altitude states (Utah, Colorado) use 85/87/91.

 

[Slash]

I'm a little worried about how the turbo is going to hold up in hot weather. We like NA engines down here because the whole shebang runs so much cooler. Hopefully they'll put one of those heat extraction ducts right over the turbine. Maybe put a naca duct in front of it. I know the ecoboost radiator is bigger, but I hope it's really huge.

I would think there's enough running around in other vehicles without issue that Ford thinks it'll be ok.

 

[YSSMAN]

I wonder if the Mustang will have the temporary overboost feature like the Focus does? If so, it would put it at a distinct on-paper advantage (0-60, quarter mile) over the V6.

"SCRAMBLA BOOSTANO!!"

I wouldn't be surprised if it had that same overboost function. It seems like most performance-oriented turbo fours have that these days.

I can only hope for:

 

[CodeRedR51]

Mustang Ecoboost First Impressions

 

[Badasp5.0]

I think you are right. I'm actually surprised they aren't completely gimping the V6 by making it only available with a 2.73 rear axle ratio or something silly like that.

That already started in '2011 when the 3.7 replaced the 4.0. The '05 to '10 V6s had a 3:31 while the '11 to '14 had a 2:73 Unless you get the V6 performance package that brings it back to 3:31.

High altitude states (Utah, Colorado) use 85/87/91.

Same here in NM with most of the state above 5k feet you can get away with lower octane without detonation since there is less air to burn.

 

[Slash]

That color yellow looks absolutely gorgeous.

 

[Omnis]

I would think there's enough running around in other vehicles without issue that Ford thinks it'll be ok.

No, it's ****in hot here.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

High altitude states (Utah, Colorado) use 85/87/91.

I think I knew that. Anyway, I said 87 was the standard, not what's sold everywhere

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

At last a test of the 2.3 Turbo Sounds promising.

 

[Tornado]

Mustang Ecoboost First Impressions

Um...

 

[CodeRedR51]

Um...

Eh goes to show how much I keep up with things, I saw it posted on Facebook so I thought I would share. Guess I wasted a post.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Oh man.. All the old beards screaming sacrilege, forgetting that Mustang has had an i4 and i4 turbo before.. Which was capable of beating the asthmatic 5.0 of that era.. Hilarious

 

[Omnis]

85 octane? That's weird. We get 87/89/91. You sure it's the right octane number? Ours is MON+RON/2

 

[Beeblebrox237]

85 octane? That's weird. We get 87/89/91. You sure it's the right octane number? Ours is MON+RON/2

Yep. At higher altitudes there's less risk of knock.

 

[CodeRedR51]

85 octane? That's weird. We get 87/89/91. You sure it's the right octane number? Ours is MON+RON/2

Quick google search got me this.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

I need to see video of this Boostang in motion.