2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Slash]

I haven't seen 85 in a long time but I have seen 87/89/91/93. Anything after and you need to go to the airport.

 

[eSZee]

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.

Are there logs showing pulled timing due to 87 gas?
I always hear this and always believed that if premium is recommended use premium to achieve full power numbers. Then I logged a couple cars and saw NO timing differences between 87 and 93 when you gave the ECU time to adjust.
There was a difference the very first 2 or 3 days when switching from 93 to 87 and vice versa but after that, no knock and no pulled timing.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I haven't seen 85 in a long time but I have seen 87/89/91/93. Anything after and you need to go to the airport.

Some (or maybe all?) Loves truck stops sell race gas.

 

[Slash]

It's a good possibility they sell some stuff up to 106 but I not sure if they do or if they go higher. Anything higher and I was told the only place to get it was an airport.

I could be totally wrong too. Things change.

 

[YSSMAN]

Some (or maybe all?) Loves truck stops sell race gas.

Really? Last time I was at a Loves, in West Virginia, I didn't see it. I know Sunoco around here used to carry 103, but they've since disappeared.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Really? Last time I was at a Loves, in West Virginia, I didn't see it. I know Sunoco around here used to carry 103, but they've since disappeared.

The one on the way south out of Phoenix has it, but there's also a drag strip across the freeway from it, so that might be why.

 

[Omnis]

Here's the trunk. Almost as pathetic as the Camaro.

 

[Azure Flare]

There is 1 important question about the trunk though:

Will it body?

 

[TheCracker]

There is 1 important question about the trunk though:

Will it body?

That's not a question that needs answering for another 20 years when these things are worth as much as a 4-pack of Bud Light and a packet of Marlboro.

 

[Adamgp]

Are there logs showing pulled timing due to 87 gas?
I always hear this and always believed that if premium is recommended use premium to achieve full power numbers. Then I logged a couple cars and saw NO timing differences between 87 and 93 when you gave the ECU time to adjust.
There was a difference the very first 2 or 3 days when switching from 93 to 87 and vice versa but after that, no knock and no pulled timing.

Don't have any logs, got the info off Ford's website as well as some Ford forums. Depends on the car, of course. Some cars show no difference with octane levels.

For the Ecoboost engines, max power is obtained by running 91 octane or higher, according to Ford's website and the EB vehicle owner's manuals. Even then, it depends on the application. The 3.5 EB in the Taurus SHO requires 91 to get rated power, but can run 87 with reduced power.

The 3.5 EB in the F-150 lists 87 as recommended for regular driving. (Premium is recommended for "severe duty" such as high altitude driving, towing, etc) It has been confirmed that it does gain power with higher octane.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/03/ford-vs-gm-twin-turbo-showdown.html#more

End of 7th paragraph:

We should note Ford tells us that its power outputs improve slightly, measuring 385 horsepower and 430 pounds-feet of torque when using premium fuel, instead of the regular fuel the owner's manual recommends.

Same goes for the 1.6/2.0 EB engines. Ford rates max power using premium gas, although 87 can be run with a slight decrease in power. Not always noticeable from the driver's seat.

 

[Zenith]

Here's the trunk. Almost as pathetic as the Camaro.

Was this taken at Michigan International Speedway? Looks like the infield.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The boot looks deep and fairly capacious, actually. But those lights make it really hard to get in there!

 

[Omnis]

The boot looks deep and fairly capacious, actually. But those lights make it really hard to get in there!

At least it's better than a 'maro.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

At least it's better than a 'maro.

That's just awful. I cannot believe GM actually did that, that's just stupid and lazy, and really poorly designed. I suppose it goes well with the rest of the Camaro, though.

 

[Slash]

For as much as the car has changed, the fact that the same basic same can be found in all of these cars is neat.

 

[TheCracker]

At least it's better than a 'maro.

That's atrocious for such a big car!

 

[CodeRedR51]

New SVO? Hmmmm.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/16/ford-mustang-svo-spy-shots-video/

 

[Badasp5.0]

Here's the trunk. Almost as pathetic as the Camaro.

Meh looks like the opening on my SN95. I lived with it for 16 years no problems granted I don't golf but strollers, rugs etc do fit no problem.

 

[Badasp5.0]

For as much as the car has changed, the fact that the same basic same can be found in all of these cars is neat.

I want that poster for my garage!

 

[eSZee]

Don't have any logs, got the info off Ford's website as well as some Ford forums. Depends on the car, of course. Some cars show no difference with octane levels.

For the Ecoboost engines, max power is obtained by running 91 octane or higher, according to Ford's website and the EB vehicle owner's manuals. Even then, it depends on the application. The 3.5 EB in the Taurus SHO requires 91 to get rated power, but can run 87 with reduced power.

The 3.5 EB in the F-150 lists 87 as recommended for regular driving. (Premium is recommended for "severe duty" such as high altitude driving, towing, etc) It has been confirmed that it does gain power with higher octane.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/03/ford-vs-gm-twin-turbo-showdown.html#more

End of 7th paragraph:



Same goes for the 1.6/2.0 EB engines. Ford rates max power using premium gas, although 87 can be run with a slight decrease in power. Not always noticeable from the driver's seat.

All manufacturer's word it along the same lines as FORD, doesn't mean it's true.
Everything you're saying is what I was questioning in my previous post.

 

[Adamgp]

All manufacturer's word it along the same lines as FORD, doesn't mean it's true.
Everything you're saying is what I was questioning in my previous post.

Believe what you want.

 

[Keef]

Here's the trunk. Almost as pathetic as the Camaro.

At least it's better than a 'maro.

The Mustang's hole is at least twice the size of the Camaro's. The Chevy is hilarious, btw. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be fired.

 

[Keef]

New SVO? Hmmmm.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/16/ford-mustang-svo-spy-shots-video/

It sounds just like the V8 at a higher frequency. You could easily make the sound change with a different exhaust design. Why, I'm not sure, but perhaps they're testing out different sounds to make the perfect one to suit the car.

 

[Slash]

I want that poster for my garage!

$15 on ebay.

 

[Badasp5.0]

The Mustang's hole is at least twice the size of the Camaro's. The Chevy is hilarious, btw. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be fired.

And considering the 4 years between the concept car and the production version you would think GM could figure out a better trunk opening.

 

[Blackbird.]

Autoblog's First Ride in the Ecoboost Mustang.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It sounds just like the V8 at a higher frequency. You could easily make the sound change with a different exhaust design. Why, I'm not sure, but perhaps they're testing out different sounds to make the perfect one to suit the car.

Doesn't sound like a V8 to me. If it is, it's a V8 with 180 degree headers. Though I can't imagine a 4 cylinder mustang needing tires that big.

 

[Zenith]

I'd expect the Ecoboost turbo's weight distribution to be pretty good. That tiny engine (aluminum block?) with the added weight of IRS in the rear will hopefully add balance to a car that has been nearly 60/40 since the Fox body.

 

[Slash]

I read somewhere that Ford was going for 55/45 for the V8 so I would think if anything the 4 pot should be almost 50/50 if not 50/50.

 

[ildd]

I bet it's more like 52/48. I don't think 250lb out of the front will bring it to 50/50.