2020 Ford Mustang EcoBoost 2.3-Liter High Performance Package

captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

There's a reason for them to make it work. It be in obtainable halo car. For people that have obviously other vehicles multiple vehicles and are likely the types to buy the first vehicles for their children. if you're confident and the other offerings that you have on your showroom floor when they come in for their midlife crisis car you're going to have the potential to sell them three to four to five other vehicles within the next 10 to 12 years. 

The mustang GT is already an obtainable halo car. For just over the average new car sales price, you can get a 460hp rocket ship that makes insane noises when you want it to. For around 40k you can get one with all the track pack, recaro seats, fancy stereo, etc

Knerrpool said:

In reply to engiekev :

Thanks, that is helpful and I figured there would be some such dropoff.  Don't know what that translates into regarding the 0-60 time, but it still should handily beat my Ford Fusion (which is also using 87 octane gas).  It doesn't.

It could definitely account for a couple seconds off the 0-60 time.  With turbo engines, octane makes a far larger difference than naturally aspirated engines.  This is just physics and thermodynamics at play, nothing new with the ecoboost engines. Also like others stated its very difficult to reproduce magazine or mfr 0-60 times, there are far too many variables to get just right in uncontrolled tests on the street.  I would caution against comparing the measured 0-60 time from the Ecoboost Mustang, to the mfr stated 0-60 from the fusion.  Regardless, you would likely see 1-2s off your 0-60 test time with 93 octane gas, allowing some time for the ECU to "learn" the higher octane fuel before the test.

You also have to consider area under the curve of the engine power output; with 93 Octane it makes 310HP peak, with 87 Octane it makes 275HP peak.  Those are mfr stated numbers at the crankshaft in brake horsepower. 

Granted this is not the HPP mustang results, but here is a vehicle dyno plot showing wheel horsepower. What is important here is the difference between 87 vs 93 octane (trying to compare absolute values of dyno wheel horsepower to crankshaft BHP is meaningless). Notice the large difference in the HP curve after 4000RPM all the way to redline, and think about what RPM the vehicle operates at during a 0-60 run (about 4500-6500RPM depending on transmission).

^ I wonder if that dyno and engiekev's sensible suggestion of dealers using 87 octane is why I hated the 2.3L ecoboost when I drove it. I didn't like the way the power rapidly fell off as the revs climbed. Edit: Sounds like the PP variant has a broader power curve as well.

I definitely see a place for the smaller engined mustang (although I didn't like it :) ), I don't see it being V8 or nothing. A lot of crossover driving members of the general public have that perspective. It's certainly no where near slow in a straight line and there are many other desirable attributes. Maybe it makes the most sense in a near-base trim?

The next gen mustang is coming out pretty soon. It'll be interesting if they can keep the weight down while platform sharing with the exploder. It sounds like the Camaro may be going away, which may help prop up Mustang sales in the wake of gloomy sales trends.

In reply to engiekev :

Interesting stuff.  So, it would appear 6.5 is what you would expect with 87 octane.  Based on what I'm seeing, even with higher octane and ideal conditions it seems a little hard to believe you could even get to 4.5 as Ford claims. 

Thanks for all of the replies.  I guess my big hang up is this:

All things considered, I would have expected a car named Mustang 2.3L Turbo with High Performance Package to be, straight off the lot with a normal driver, faster to 0-60 than a base Altima or Optima.  At 6.5 seconds, not only is it not faster, its probably slower - it's definitely slower than my Fusion.

It seems you've got to really try (including using only the most expensive gasoline) in order to get this car close to its advertised performance.   What I actually really like about this car is that it is NOT a GT (nothing against GTs, I just like to be "different"). But, I'm not sure its worth it.  

In reply to Knerrpool :

Surface also matters in traction limited applications.  Don't even bother trying on asphalt...

Knerrpool said:

(including using only the most expensive gasoline)

 

It's a turbocharged car. That's just how it works. To get more power you need more boost, to get more boost you need more knock resistance, and to get more knock reisistance you need higher octane fuel.

Snowdoggie said:

Dave M (Forum Supporter) said:

The boostang wins the speed for money argument, particularly once you factor in the discounts.  It makes the wrong noises, and personally I think the it's too darn big, 

Not if you drive to work on the freeways of Dallas surrounded by full sized pickups and SUVs pushing 80. My Miata was just too small for that. A Mustang or Camaro is as small as you want to go. 

Pfff I drove an S2000 around in Texas for a year and felt fine. 

I've also had 6AT Ecoboost Mustangs for rentals and absolutely loved them. I even almost considered one over a Camaro SS once; however, I was in Vegas and my co-worker had just gotten a 5.0 rental. We deemed ourselves scientists that week and had to do some testing on our hypothesis of Ford vs. Chevy V8s in the desert. 

Anyways, for a daily driver/autox/trackday car the EB all day. It sounds like a bobcat screeching (look it up) but that's something I could get over if I was in the market for something like this. 

DirtyBird222 said:

Snowdoggie said:

Dave M (Forum Supporter) said:

The boostang wins the speed for money argument, particularly once you factor in the discounts.  It makes the wrong noises, and personally I think the it's too darn big, 

Not if you drive to work on the freeways of Dallas surrounded by full sized pickups and SUVs pushing 80. My Miata was just too small for that. A Mustang or Camaro is as small as you want to go. 

Pfff I drove an S2000 around in Texas for a year and felt fine. 

With my NA Miata I my eye level was equal with the bottom of the door of most full-sized trucks. Lifted ones I could easily see under. Never worried about it. Don't worry about it now in my NC either. 

I'll never own another motorcycle again however. 

MrFancypants said:

Knerrpool said:

(including using only the most expensive gasoline)

 

It's a turbocharged car. That's just how it works. To get more power you need more boost, to get more boost you need more knock resistance, and to get more knock reisistance you need higher octane fuel.

Not going to spend $40k on a car with the handling and power it has, then be bitter about having to spend $3 per gallon for 93 instead of $2 for 87.  (Prices pulled from the pumps I was at today, YMMV.  And yes, my 17mpg pig is really happy on 93...)

Can I say it's amusing that many here want to modify the Mustang to make it more like a smaller, sportier, car.  

The Mustang outsells each of those cars in one quarter.  Why in the world would any company be interested in selling less of a product?  Especially one that would not be cheaper to make- so it would end up less profitable.

I don't know this, but I suspect that the 2.3 already barely makes any money, but if not for it, the high value specials would cost many times as much to make, and then not make them profitable.

Bear in mind, the Mustang only exists because both the 2.3 and the 5.0 are used in other vehicles.  So the plants they are made at are running full out (especially the 2.3, which is in a lot of vehicles).

But it does also make me really mad that we don't sell cars anymore.  I want a Focus, and can't get one, for no logical reason- since we make them all over the world.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

What else is the 2.3 used in?

I mean, academically I know it's a generic engine.  But the only four cylinder Ecoboosts that I ever see are 1.5s, 1.6s, and the occasional 2.0.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

Can I say it's amusing that many here want to modify the Mustang to make it more like a smaller, sportier, car.  

The Mustang outsells each of those cars in one quarter.  Why in the world would any company be interested in selling less of a product?  Especially one that would not be cheaper to make- so it would end up less profitable.

I don't know this, but I suspect that the 2.3 already barely makes any money, but if not for it, the high value specials would cost many times as much to make, and then not make them profitable.

Bear in mind, the Mustang only exists because both the 2.3 and the 5.0 are used in other vehicles.  So the plants they are made at are running full out (especially the 2.3, which is in a lot of vehicles).

But it does also make me really mad that we don't sell cars anymore.  I want a Focus, and can't get one, for no logical reason- since we make them all over the world.

It's the same GRM stuff as always. 

Refuse to buy new cars, then bitch that manufacturers don't make anything they want. Then claim they don't buy new because manufacturers don't make anything they want.

And the circular logic continues ad nauseum.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Ranger, it will be the base engine in the new bronco, I think it comes in the explorer as base engine as well

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

What else is the 2.3 used in?

Ranger, Edge, Explorer, Lincoln MKC/Corsair (Escape platform), new Bronco

Globally, I think the new Focus ST and Everest get it as well

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

The big one is the Explorer.  It remains to be seen how popular the Ranger and Bronco will be long term, and everyone knows Lincoln isn't exactly on every corner.

And the 2,0l is also huge- Escape, Edge, Explorer (too)- as well as the Mondeo in the rest of the world.  But it was the high end engine in the Fusion for many years.

The 1.6 is gone.  And the 1.5l "base" engine will be 3 cyl.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

 

But it does also make me really mad that we don't sell cars anymore.  I want a Focus, and can't get one, for no logical reason- since we make them all over the world.

Not to be facetious, but the competition put Ford cars ex-Mustang out of business.  You want a hatchback? There are better cars than the Focus, whether you wanted a cheap practical car or whether you wanted a hot hatch. OK, maybe not the Focus RS, but the rest of the Foci.  You want a sedan?  The Fusion was pure meh, although the PHEV was nifty if you wanted to get stealth mileage. Etc., etc.

In reply to Dave M (Forum Supporter) :

As far as I'm concerned, that's an excuse.  It's not as if knowing how to make a profitable, desirable CAR isn't known.  I sometimes wonder if the direction cars took since Mullaly left was a self fulfilling plan.  Take stuff out of cars, sales go down, profits go down, and "Look, cars don't make money"  well, when you do that, duh.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

I tried to edit my post but the forum kept hanging.

I'm speaking strictly of my shop's clientele, which is primarily cars 4-10 years old.  Most Ford SUVs I see are 3.5, 2.5, or 1.6 Ecoboost.  I see about one 2.0 EB per year, and have one customer with a 3.5EB Flex.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

That could be. Cars as a whole are a shrinking market, while CUVs/SUVs are a growth market.  So it's easier to go for a steady slice of a growing pie than a larger slice of a shrinking pie - particularly when your competitors are better at making desirable, profitable cars than you are.  So maybe Ford management is just being realistic?  Making cars is an awful, low-margin business (apparently except for the magic accountants at Tesla).

In reply to Dave M (Forum Supporter) :

But it's not non-existant.   There are car people out there, and not all of them want a cheap car.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

If you want nonexistent, how about the market for a luxury compact economy car?

My S40 spoiled me for that.  Anything else as small felt like crap inside. What else like that was ever sold in the US? Infiniti G20?  Most things in that size range feel cheap and shoddy no matter what.  Mercedes tried with the C-class hatch but that wasn't much of an economy car.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

If you want nonexistent, how about the market for a luxury compact economy car?

My S40 spoiled me for that.  Anything else as small felt like crap inside. What else like that was ever sold in the US? Infiniti G20?  Most things in that size range feel cheap and shoddy no matter what.  Mercedes tried with the C-class hatch but that wasn't much of an economy car.

Lexus IS200h or whatever? Basically a taller hatchback, luxury Prius?

I considered one at one point but was like that's a lot of damn money for a tiny little car.

In reply to z31maniac :

CT200h? Been looking at those, although they seem a bit underpowered.  And it doesn't have a trunk.  More power would help overlook the lack of trunk.