GM Inside News Forum banner

2015 Ford Mustang will get 2.3-liter EcoBoost in U.S.

12K views 92 replies 53 participants last post by  vcs2600 
#1 ·
2015 Ford Mustang will get 2.3-liter EcoBoost in U.S.
Road and Track
March 8, 2013
by Alex Nunez

Yesterday, Edmunds broke the news that the 2015 Ford Mustang will receive Ford's 2.3-liter EcoBoost four cylinder. It was also reported that the engine will be a Europe-only option. That's incorrect. Road & Track has confirmed that we will indeed get the 2.3-liter turbo four here in the U.S. market. Furthermore, don't bet on it being the base engine, either.

Ford precedent shows that in other cars and crossovers offering an EcoBoost mill, it's positioned as a premium upgrade, whether you're talking about the Fusion, the Escape. the Explorer, and so on. And with that in mind, the speculation can get fun. Bet on the base 305-horsepower 3.7-liter V6 sticking around as the lowest-cost entry point for Mustang buyers. That means the EcoBoost is likely to come in at over 300 horsepower, as it's unlikely Ford could otherwise sell Americans on a less powerful four-banger as an "upgrade," despite the attendant benefits related to fuel economy. The V8 will remain the range-topper in the GT, as well it should.

Full article at link.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
With the Mustang shrinking a hair and shedding some decent weight, I wonder if a base 4 cylinder engine would be in the works over the V6. I can't see Ford getting more than 320 to 330 HP out of the turbo 2.3 which would be a small increase from the 305 HP V6. Guess we will see. I'm in it for the Mustang GT w/ 5.0 V8 though. Hope it gets a little bump over the 420 HP it has now.
 
#56 ·
GM is getting 135 HP/L out if it's own Ecotec engine. If Ford match's this output, you are looking at exactly 310 HP. I don't see Ford getting any more then that, no other ECOBOOST application they have out on the road right now is that powerful.

Perhaps they will downsize the V6? Doubtful but possible. Perhaps they will tout the extra torque of the Ecoboost? More likely.
 
#5 ·
I wonder if Ford will replace the 3.7L with the 3.5L. The car will be lighter so the performance should be close if not identical but with that weight loss and the smaller displacement, the fuel ratings should go up from 19/31 to maybe 22/34 if not more. That's worthwhile.
 
#9 ·
I can't wait for the new mustang to release....

Thanks for the updates!

How much more compact do you think the next mustang will be?

Length width ?

Should we expect this new mustang to size up closely with the new BMW 4 series? But with some Aston Martin style?

Any idea on transmissions?
 
#11 ·
A 4 cylinder turbo is perfectly fine for the next gen of pony cars. The weight reduction alone will offset the decrease in power from today's standard V6 offering, with improved handling and balance to go along with it. I wouldn't be surprised if it became the Mustang's best seller.

The 2.0T ATS is a very capable machine and I think we can expect the 6th gen Camaro to be better dynamically than the ATS, which holds the crown of best drivers car in its class. I'm actually looking forward to the 2.0T Camaro.
 
#12 ·
I don't think the size of the Camaro or Mustang will drastically change. The main thing is the weight reduction for both models. Fords going to have to introduce a 270ish hp entry level engine if the 300+ hp four banger is used.
 
#32 ·
It'll be interesting to see how much the Alpha Camaro weighs compared to the current model. GM did an admirable job in managing the weight of the ATS, but let's not forget that the Camaro will likely start $8K-$10K less than the ATS. Maybe certain lightweight parts and materials make sense in the ATS but wouldn't be cost-effective in a Camaro? I don't know. Just wondering out loud...

Of course, one low-tech way of making the car a bit lighter is to simply make it smaller. How long is the Camaro now? Around 190"? I wouldn't mind seeing it shrink down to the ATS's 182". That'd be just a couple inches shorter than the first generation Camaro.
 
#13 · (Edited)
THIS is why Chevy should not bother with the Code 130.

The Alpha Camaro is already getting downsized and is supposed to shed a pile of weight as it is. There aren't enough sales between the BRZ/FR-S and Genesis/Mustang/Challenger/Camaro markets to offer two different cars so close in price.

A turbo-4 Camaro, light in weight and with different enough styling (soft trim is all it'd need to distinguish itself), could appeal to the smaller 4cyl coupe customers, add younger buyers to the Camaro line, and still give the V6 and V8 models their own distinct characteristics and their own (quite different) customer bases.

Ford's doing it with a smaller, lighter, turbo-4 Mustang. The Camaro ought to, too.
 
#15 ·
It's inevitable that every car from mid size own down will eventually have a T4 available. The T4 with lighter overall cars and eventually DCT type transmissions will make for a very fun to drive combo since turbos and automatics go together like peanut butter and jelly. No it won't be a fire breathing tire smoking V8 but in day to day driving they will be tons of fun.

The real issue is how manufacturers are going to market their V6 offerings. If they continue to develop the V6 to keep it above a T4 it won't be a problem but realistically the big money is going to be poured into T4 engines that will eventually equal and then surpass the NA V6ers.

Right now if you look at the ATS the V6 is more powerful and more money so the extra money for the V6 makes sense. What happens when the inevitable happens and you surpass the V6 with the T4 in power, price, and efficiency. The only way to make the V6 a viable choice is to eventually price it less than the T4 but at that point how viable is the V6 to even have in the lineup.
 
#17 · (Edited)
One of the things Ford discovered with Ecoboost developemnt was that the current modified NA engines have
less than ideal bore-stroke ratios to maximize the gains from the Ecoboost technology. Now remember that
Ecoboost is way more than a modified Bosch DI Turbo system. The software is set up so that the gasoline
engine basically mimics a diesel in terms of low end torque and improved economy. these preconditions
ultimately limit upper end power to around 5500 to 6,000 rpm. So while the horsepower is significantly
greater than thaat of a diesel, the I-4 Ecoboost engines typically have less top end power than
comprable DI Turbo set up - which is understandable given the use of small turbos....

Now step to next gen 2.3 Variable architecture Ecoboost with around 275 hp and around 310 lb ft
with much better brake specific fuel consumption due to increased rates of cooled EGR.
The brief of this engine was to emmulate a Ford Duratec V6 but deliver up to 25% increase in economy...
Such an engine would seem approximates the now dead and buried 4.6 2V V8 from a few years back

So imagine if this engine could be plugged in anywhere Ford currently uses a 3.5/3.7 V6.
Think just about every larger Car, utility and maybe even entry level F150....

But back to the thread at hand, a 2.3 Ecoboost in a 3500 lb Mustang with the power
and torque of a 4.6 2V but the fuel economy of a Fusion - what's not to like..
 
#23 ·
All is good, and yes everyone is learning DI Gasoline engines.

But Diesel contains 25% more explosisive Power than Gasoline under the right cicumstances, Yes hard to believe, (throw a match in a can of Gas verses a can of Diesel) But weigh a gallon of Gas, then weigh a gallon of Diesel. And it takes less to Refine that gallon of Diesel.

So I am not sure it will ever beat a Diesel for Torque, But it will be interesting none the same.
 
#19 ·
Can anyone explain to me the logic of a boosted 4 with >2L displacement? I thought 4 cylinder engines have serious issues with NVH at large displacements, requiring balance shaft, damping systems and active engine mounts.

Wouldn't a small turbo I6 or higly boosted 2L I4 be a better choice? Even a detuned 3.5 ecoboost?
 
#20 ·
I wonder if they have stuffed this one up?

2.0 litre already exists but a 2.3 i've never heard of

Thats doesnt mean they wont do it but i also believe that largish 4cyl engines are not very NVH friendly

2.0 l ecoboost should make plenty of HP for an entry level sports car
 
#29 ·
If a 240 HP four-banger can power a BMW 528i, I am sure the universe can survive a four cylinder Mustang offering.
 
#37 ·
It's going to be interesting to see how all of this will shake out for Ford. Besides the obvious mad dash for the die-hards to get the last model year of the current Mustang. Also, I wonder if Ford is going to be able to keep the weight down with the IRS in the new upcoming Mustang? Something tells me it won't be easy, just the same as GM shrinking the Camaro and keeping it 2+2 is nuts if you ask me, not that Camaro buyers care about the back seats anyway.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top