Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday September 16, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2013, 10:05 AM   #326
Rootus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89821
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: A Series Of Toobs
Vehicle:
2015 STI LE

Default

I don't buy it. How many production 2.0L turbo engines make over 300hp? Plus, it isn't Ford's style to push the envelope in this area, especially on a budget pony car. I'd be less surprised to see them offer a 250hp 2.0T option, along with V6/GT/etc. If they do uncharacteristically decide to push the 2.0T up towards 300hp, I'd expect it to replace the V6 as the base.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Rootus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 10:18 AM   #327
SWP n Gold
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 110783
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Stamford, CT
Vehicle:
2010 WRX
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rootus View Post
I don't buy it. How many production 2.0L turbo engines make over 300hp? Plus, it isn't Ford's style to push the envelope in this area, especially on a budget pony car. I'd be less surprised to see them offer a 250hp 2.0T option, along with V6/GT/etc. If they do uncharacteristically decide to push the 2.0T up towards 300hp, I'd expect it to replace the V6 as the base.
A lot of places are saying a 2.3L 4-cylinder EcoBoost for the 2015 Mustang/Focus RS. If they can make 250+bhp for the Focus ST out of the 2.0, I don't think 300bhp with a 2.3L should be a problem, especially if they change up equipment a little or "tune" it more aggressively. If this is the case, it wouldn't be able to replace the V6 as the base engine because it would end up costing more than a base V6 ($23K right now). It would most likely slot between the base V6 and base GT at maybe the $26-27K mark (total estimation obviously).
SWP n Gold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 10:19 AM   #328
samagon
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 26859
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: undisputed COMBAT! champion
Vehicle:
of TXIC
I also like (oYo)!!!!

Default

I think the SVO nameplate is due for a revival as a turbo V6 GT model...
samagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 01:27 PM   #329
Rootus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89821
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: A Series Of Toobs
Vehicle:
2015 STI LE

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWP n Gold View Post
A lot of places are saying a 2.3L 4-cylinder EcoBoost for the 2015 Mustang/Focus RS. If they can make 250+bhp for the Focus ST out of the 2.0, I don't think 300bhp with a 2.3L should be a problem, especially if they change up equipment a little or "tune" it more aggressively. If this is the case, it wouldn't be able to replace the V6 as the base engine because it would end up costing more than a base V6 ($23K right now). It would most likely slot between the base V6 and base GT at maybe the $26-27K mark (total estimation obviously).
More money, less performance, and maybe a couple more mpg? This would be an odd decision on Ford's part IMO. They've done something similar recently (F150) so there's precedent, but I'd be surprised nonetheless. It's tough to find a good argument for changing either the V6 or the GT formula.
Rootus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 01:50 PM   #330
SWP n Gold
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 110783
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Stamford, CT
Vehicle:
2010 WRX
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rootus View Post
More money, less performance, and maybe a couple more mpg? This would be an odd decision on Ford's part IMO. They've done something similar recently (F150) so there's precedent, but I'd be surprised nonetheless. It's tough to find a good argument for changing either the V6 or the GT formula.
Well the 2.0T Fusion makes 22 city/33 highway as opposed to the V6 Mustangs 19/31. The new Mustang is going to be lighter than both of those cars so I would expect at least 22/33 out of the 4-cylinder Mustang. As far as performance, it should be higher than the V6 because it's supposedly going to make the same power, but it will make it lower in the RPM range so performance should improve as well. The only downside is price and that's because Ford is charging more for their Ecoboost models, but that's just the name of the game. Same with the F150, as you mentioned.
SWP n Gold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 09:16 PM   #331
john_knoxville
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 109568
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWP n Gold View Post
I would expect at least 22/33 out of the 4-cylinder Mustang.
does that equate to 30 mpg on average?
john_knoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 10:02 AM   #332
SWP n Gold
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 110783
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Stamford, CT
Vehicle:
2010 WRX
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john_knoxville View Post
does that equate to 30 mpg on average?
It would be about 26.4mpg combined if you're doing 50% city and 50% highway, if I'm calculating it the right way; which I might not be.
SWP n Gold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 11:14 AM   #333
Rootus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89821
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: A Series Of Toobs
Vehicle:
2015 STI LE

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWP n Gold View Post
It would be about 26.4mpg combined if you're doing 50% city and 50% highway, if I'm calculating it the right way; which I might not be.
That looks correct.

1/((1/22 + 1/33)/2) = 26.4

Think how much simpler that calculation would be if we'd quit using mpg as a measurement. Car companies love it, though.
Rootus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 11:53 AM   #334
ForceFed4
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 7370
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Bethesda, MD
Vehicle:
2013 5.0
SGM

Default

If I recall correctly, the current (outgoing) 305-hp Focus RS is officially rated at a combined 30.1 mpg (in the UK). And a recent publication was able to get ~38 mpg out of it in a hypermiling challenge.

Assuming the newer 2.3 Ecoboost engine can pull similar numbers, it does look like there's at least the potential for substantial fuel economy gains over the already impressive 3.7 V6, if it were to become a "mid-range" engine for the mustang.

Of course, drive it like it's meant to be driven, and all that will go out the window. But I'm sure Ford would love to put a "30 mpg combined" EPA rating on the window sticker of the Mustang. It's purely a marketing feature.
ForceFed4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 12:13 PM   #335
SWP n Gold
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 110783
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Stamford, CT
Vehicle:
2010 WRX
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceFed4 View Post
If I recall correctly, the current (outgoing) 305-hp Focus RS is officially rated at a combined 30.1 mpg (in the UK). And a recent publication was able to get ~38 mpg out of it in a hypermiling challenge.

Assuming the newer 2.3 Ecoboost engine can pull similar numbers, it does look like there's at least the potential for substantial fuel economy gains over the already impressive 3.7 V6, if it were to become a "mid-range" engine for the mustang.

Of course, drive it like it's meant to be driven, and all that will go out the window. But I'm sure Ford would love to put a "30 mpg combined" EPA rating on the window sticker of the Mustang. It's purely a marketing feature.
30.1 UK mpg = 25.06 US mpg so it should have no problem doing that. Off-topic, but I love the sound of that I5 in the 2nd gen RS. Wish the Mustang got that motor...
SWP n Gold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 11:38 AM   #336
john_knoxville
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 109568
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWP n Gold View Post

It would be about 26.4mpg combined if you're doing 50% city and 50% highway, if I'm calculating it the right way; which I might not be.
alright, so do the 2016 CAFE standards require each car sold to average 30 mpg, or collectively all cars offered by a manufacturer? because if its each, 26.4 ain't gonna cut it
john_knoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 01:07 PM   #337
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

I think their lineup has to average that, not each vehicle.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 02:38 PM   #338
AllAWD
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 17079
Join Date: Apr 2002
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Alexandria, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john_knoxville View Post
alright, so do the 2016 CAFE standards require each car sold to average 30 mpg, or collectively all cars offered by a manufacturer? because if its each, 26.4 ain't gonna cut it
Yes, across the line with many adjustments.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...cafe-standards
AllAWD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:02 AM   #339
samagon
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 26859
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: undisputed COMBAT! champion
Vehicle:
of TXIC
I also like (oYo)!!!!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john_knoxville View Post
alright, so do the 2016 CAFE standards require each car sold to average 30 mpg, or collectively all cars offered by a manufacturer? because if its each, 26.4 ain't gonna cut it
all CARs sold. so if they sell 2 cars with 35mpg and 1 with 20mpg, viola, 30mpg cafe average.

that doesn't include trucks, or more rightly, vehicles classed as trucks, they still have lower standards.
samagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:44 AM   #340
Rootus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89821
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: A Series Of Toobs
Vehicle:
2015 STI LE

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samagon View Post
if they sell 2 cars with 35mpg and 1 with 20mpg, viola, 30mpg cafe average.
One hopes that the calculated average would be 28. But then again, it's the gov't ...
Rootus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 11:07 AM   #341
express_wagon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 68346
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
1996 LC
2014 JK

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samagon View Post
all CARs sold. so if they sell 2 cars with 35mpg and 1 with 20mpg, viola, 30mpg cafe average.

that doesn't include trucks, or more rightly, vehicles classed as trucks, they still have lower standards.

Questionable math and string instruments, wat?
express_wagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 01:46 PM   #342
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

A lot of it is auto companies meeting those targets by using taller gears to get max cruising mpg, hence why the city mpg for a lot of cars has been fairly consistent while the highway mpg is improving more significantly on paper. It's better than nothing, but still, it would be nice to see more than just different ratios (and greater numbers of them) accounting for the majority of the increase in fuel economy, as I'd think that a lot of the technology going into the engine is what really helps improve city mpg.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 02:14 PM   #343
samagon
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 26859
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: undisputed COMBAT! champion
Vehicle:
of TXIC
I also like (oYo)!!!!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rootus View Post
One hopes that the calculated average would be 28. But then again, it's the gov't ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by express_wagon View Post
Questionable math and string instruments, wat?
I fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - and slightly less well-known is: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line" - but even more slightly less well known is this: "never calculate arithmetic mean when you should be calculating harmonic mean"
samagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 05:48 PM   #344
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samagon View Post
I fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - and slightly less well-known is: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line" - but even more slightly less well known is this: "never calculate arithmetic mean when you should be calculating harmonic mean"
What I don't get though, is why is harmonic mean more appropriate than typical arithmetic in this case. Using harmonic just guarantees a lower than what should be expected average. All it does is make the estimate more conservative in terms of the MPG model...
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 02:39 PM   #345
SWP n Gold
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 110783
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Stamford, CT
Vehicle:
2010 WRX
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
The May 2013 Issue of Automobile Magazine is out and the publication contains some interesting new speculation about the 2015 Mustang. Some of this information has been known and/or widely speculated while other info is new.

Highlights:
The 2015 Mustang will premiere at the New York Auto Show on April 16 or 17, 2014. It will be slightly smaller and lighter and come close to retaining the current car's muscularity. The current 5.8L V8 in the GT500 will not fit in the slimmer 2015 Mustang. It will have an independent rear suspension (IRS).

The article also suggests that 6 (yes, six) different engine options will be available for the S550:
EcoBoost 5.0 Coyote Engine for the GT500
N/A 5.0 Coyote Engine for the Boss 302 (and presumably the GT)
EcoBoost 3.5L V6
N/A 3.7L V6
EcoBoost 2.0L 4-cylinder


Mustang6G.com thread

Looks like the V6 EcoBoost idea isn't totally dead, which is what I was hoping would show up in the new Mustang. I don't know where they're getting "6 different engines" though, I only see 5 listed.
SWP n Gold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 02:43 PM   #346
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

EcoBoost Coyote engine? That thing should be pretty mean.

I'm a little confused at what they're going to call each trim level though, assuming that they name the model different things depending on the engine, which makes sense given how they've typically been.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:15 PM   #347
devil doc
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 107279
Join Date: Feb 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Vehicle:
06 vf39 wrx
black

Default

So much win!

I cant wait for a turbo 5.0 coyote.
devil doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:25 PM   #348
Rootus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89821
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: A Series Of Toobs
Vehicle:
2015 STI LE

Default

Quote:
The article also suggests that 6 (yes, six) different engine options will be available for the S550:
EcoBoost 5.0 Coyote Engine for the GT500
N/A 5.0 Coyote Engine for the Boss 302 (and presumably the GT)
EcoBoost 3.5L V6
N/A 3.7L V6
EcoBoost 2.0L 4-cylinder
I'll believe it when I see it. The EcoBoost 3.5L and the N/A 5.0L occupy essentially the same position, as does the EcoBoost 2.0L and the NA 3.7L.
Rootus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 10:30 PM   #349
hkerekes
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 66310
Join Date: Jul 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Removing passenger seat
Vehicle:
2012 Orange

Default

IMO they wont have another BOSS 302. Ecoboost 5.0 would be nice but i cant see them doing it. 800 whp mustang???
hkerekes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 08:07 AM   #350
max pl
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 308535
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Default

yeh i dont expect another Boss either.
max pl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Refreshed Mustang coming in 2013, next generation to be 2015 model AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 20 08-07-2011 01:42 PM
Rumormill: 2015 Ford Mustang to get 2.3-liter EcoBoost AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 25 06-05-2011 08:26 PM
New Braille Battery 2015 - $120 shipped psmBoXer Private 'For Sale' Classifieds 7 01-27-2006 02:02 PM
Wal-Mart Seeks to Double Truck Fuel Economy by 2015 FunkerVogt Political Playground 25 12-19-2005 03:44 PM
What will our Subie look like in 2015? wallew Off-Topic 44 07-10-2005 03:18 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.