Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Monday September 22, 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 03-12-2013, 11:19 AM   #301
mhoward1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 9481
Join Date: Aug 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: FFR Challenge #43
Vehicle:
2011 Carrera 4s
2009 BMW M5

Default

I actually like TQ/L since it is a function of force...not power which needs a time component.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
mhoward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:26 AM   #302
aschen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30733
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston texas
Vehicle:
2007 tiny car
striped

Default

some ls engines make over 600 hp per cam. Those lazy honda engineers take 2 times as many cams for less than half the HP.
aschen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:28 AM   #303
mhoward1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 9481
Join Date: Aug 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: FFR Challenge #43
Vehicle:
2011 Carrera 4s
2009 BMW M5

Default

HP/cup holder?
mhoward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:32 AM   #304
aschen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30733
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston texas
Vehicle:
2007 tiny car
striped

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhoward1 View Post
HP/cup holder?
definately. 2/3 rds of my cars have infinite performance!
aschen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:45 AM   #305
Singularity
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 201021
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sacramento
Vehicle:
Old Pickup

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aschen View Post
definately. 2/3 rds of my cars have infinite performance!

Let's not be ridiculous; they have undefined performance.
Singularity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:53 AM   #306
aschen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30733
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston texas
Vehicle:
2007 tiny car
striped

Default

Given your user name, this discussion is appropriate .

However with non zero HP divided by zero, shouldent that be infinite or tend towards infinity of something? zero hp/ zero cup holders would be indeterminant or undefined.
aschen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 12:15 PM   #307
Singularity
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 201021
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sacramento
Vehicle:
Old Pickup

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aschen View Post
However with non zero HP divided by zero, shouldent that be infinite or tend towards infinity of something? zero hp/ zero cup holders would be indeterminant or undefined.
This is correct.

As the denominator of a fraction approaches zero, the value of the fraction approaches infinity. The value of the numerator is unimportant, as long as it isn't zero.

If the denominator is zero, then the function is undefined, except in a few specific types of mathematics where that particular fraction is defined.

Also, so as to not be too off topic, the newer mustangs are incredible cars at an incredible bargain price.
Singularity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 12:21 PM   #308
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Way to drag us back to 'reality'

Singularity
SCRAPPYDO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 01:37 PM   #309
sential
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 105288
Join Date: Jan 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
This is correct.

As the denominator of a fraction approaches zero, the value of the fraction approaches infinity. The value of the numerator is unimportant, as long as it isn't zero.

If the denominator is zero, then the function is undefined, except in a few specific types of mathematics where that particular fraction is defined.

Also, so as to not be too off topic, the newer mustangs are incredible cars at an incredible bargain price.
Your function is a fraction of the reality you create,

The fight of your life is a result of what you debate...

Cycle. Recycle. Michael Grotesque...

There's a School desk in my brain.

We are the leopards.

Mincing Quincy dropping bop drops down the drain.
sential is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 03:15 PM   #310
EtoS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 102238
Join Date: Dec 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: I'm lost in Trenton
Vehicle:
08 DGM STi
*RIP* 06 WRX TR

Default

It's a good move by Ford not to include DI yet to the 5.0. Currently it's a great engine without much competition. The point is they can't just shoot out all their trump cards at once. If they did- they would have such a hard time making further improvements later on. Also it gives them more time to make the DI even better/cheaper.

I can only imagine how much better the v6 and 5.0 are going to be when they do get DI. The v6 might even get close to 40mpg with more then 300hp or right at 40mpg at 300hp. That is stupid good.
EtoS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 04:31 PM   #311
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EtoS View Post
I can only imagine how much better the v6 and 5.0 are going to be when they do get DI. The v6 might even get close to 40mpg with more then 300hp or right at 40mpg at 300hp. That is stupid good.
I know that DI helps, but that's a HUGE jump in highway mpg that you're suggesting.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 04:40 PM   #312
EtoS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 102238
Join Date: Dec 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: I'm lost in Trenton
Vehicle:
08 DGM STi
*RIP* 06 WRX TR

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
I know that DI helps, but that's a HUGE jump in highway mpg that you're suggesting.
Take into consideration the lighter weight of the new mustang and 15% higher milage. 15% of 30 is 4.5, so just DI alone brings it close to 35, lighter weight may bring it to 37. That is close to 40. If they detuned it for the added 15% power to keep it at 300hp after DI, that's very very close to 40.
EtoS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 04:45 PM   #313
aschen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30733
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston texas
Vehicle:
2007 tiny car
striped

Default

I think even 35 would be quite the achievment, and would be shocked if rated any higher
aschen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 04:59 PM   #314
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EtoS View Post
Take into consideration the lighter weight of the new mustang and 15% higher milage. 15% of 30 is 4.5, so just DI alone brings it close to 35, lighter weight may bring it to 37. That is close to 40. If they detuned it for the added 15% power to keep it at 300hp after DI, that's very very close to 40.
That's still unrealistic. That's similar to the mentality of saying if intake adds 5 hp, exhaust adds 10 hp, headers adds 5 hp, then I have a net gain of 20 hp if I put on all three mods. You are talking about HUGE gains, and rounding up way more than reasonable. Plus "lighter weight" is not going to push it from being "close to 35" to being "37," let alone "close to 40." A weight loss that would allow a car to go up 2 mpg in otherwise identical scenarios will require a huge change in curb weight.

Just look at the Mazda 3 after they introduced the Skyactiv motor. It introduced a newer, more efficient motor with DI paired with a brand new 6-speed transmission (as I believe the previous automatic was only a 5-speed), and that application had a jump from 36 mpg to 39-40 mpg. You're talking about a Mustang jumping a full 10 mpg.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 05:36 PM   #315
EtoS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 102238
Join Date: Dec 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: I'm lost in Trenton
Vehicle:
08 DGM STi
*RIP* 06 WRX TR

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
That's still unrealistic. That's similar to the mentality of saying if intake adds 5 hp, exhaust adds 10 hp, headers adds 5 hp, then I have a net gain of 20 hp if I put on all three mods. You are talking about HUGE gains, and rounding up way more than reasonable. Plus "lighter weight" is not going to push it from being "close to 35" to being "37," let alone "close to 40." A weight loss that would allow a car to go up 2 mpg in otherwise identical scenarios will require a huge change in curb weight.

Just look at the Mazda 3 after they introduced the Skyactiv motor. It introduced a newer, more efficient motor with DI paired with a brand new 6-speed transmission (as I believe the previous automatic was only a 5-speed), and that application had a jump from 36 mpg to 39-40 mpg. You're talking about a Mustang jumping a full 10 mpg.
Curb weight of the current mustang is 3600 pounds in V6. A WRX is 3200 as a sedan with AWD. I can see Ford at least knocking off 300 pounds- 3600 for a RWD coupe is retarded high.

I shouldn't saying it will hit 40mpg- only that it can come close if they did DI, de-tuned it back to 300 and had alot of weight reduction. Hell even if they didn't reduce the weight and kept the added HP from DI- that is at least 4mpg right there. That's not bad at all.
EtoS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 05:42 PM   #316
pauli133
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 233261
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Herndon, VA, USA
Vehicle:
2005 Outback XT
Silver

Default

I don't see them netting more than 2mpg from DI.
pauli133 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:49 PM   #317
Rootus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89821
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: A Series Of Toobs
Vehicle:
2015 STI LE

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EtoS View Post
Curb weight of the current mustang is 3600 pounds in V6
The V6 is 3500. The GT is 3600.
Quote:
I can see Ford at least knocking off 300 pounds- 3600 for a RWD coupe is retarded high.
The Mustang is bigger than a WRX, so it's probably always going to weigh more. AWD doesn't add *that* much weight compared to RWD.
Rootus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:58 PM   #318
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EtoS View Post
Curb weight of the current mustang is 3600 pounds in V6. A WRX is 3200 as a sedan with AWD. I can see Ford at least knocking off 300 pounds- 3600 for a RWD coupe is retarded high.
Exactly how do you propose Ford cuts 300 pounds from the Mustang? It's not quite as if they just have unnecessarily heavy parts that are just fluff -- it's a big car. Unless they downsize the car or utilize more lightweight materials (which would cost more and drive up the price), they're not going to cut 300 pounds without the inside looking like a racecar, whether it's bare or lined with carbon fiber.

I get it -- less weight will create less work for the car to move, and will likely result in better gas mileage. But you don't know the exact effect weight has on mpg. It's not as if you lose 3-4 mpg when driving with two friends in the car (which would end up being anywhere between 250-300 pounds on top of what it normally hauls around).

Quote:
Originally Posted by EtoS View Post
I shouldn't saying it will hit 40mpg- only that it can come close if they did DI, de-tuned it back to 300 and had alot of weight reduction. Hell even if they didn't reduce the weight and kept the added HP from DI- that is at least 4mpg right there. That's not bad at all.
I don't see where you are getting these arbitrary numbers of DI adding X-amount of mpg in the Mustang application or why you think that they are achievable outside of Bizarro world.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:34 PM   #319
zzyzx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 815
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Florida
Vehicle:
2013 Boss 302 White
2000 2.5 RS Coupe Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXHillClimb View Post
P.S. It's ONLY about 2.5 x the displacement of an f20c, so it should be making 2.5x the torque, though flat torque curves are amazing and I wish I had one .
Here's a nice flat torque curve for an NA engine, the specific output it 176 HP / L, and about 73 TQ / L. Scale this up to 2.0L and that's 352 HP and 146 TQ. I guess that F20C sucks afterall, eh? And the Coyote... well, it should make 880 HP and 365 TQ. Isn't math fun?

zzyzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:44 PM   #320
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

So which motorcycle is that?
SCRAPPYDO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:54 PM   #321
zzyzx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 815
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Florida
Vehicle:
2013 Boss 302 White
2000 2.5 RS Coupe Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
So which motorcycle is that?
2013 Kawi ZX6-R, which is 636cc.
zzyzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 12:37 AM   #322
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 SCRAPPYDO View Post
what about Torque/Liter...

That is fun to compare as well.
You missed my post, BMEP of the coyote is higher than that of the fc20.

fairly simple calculation.

Code:
BMEP = (150.8 x torque) / displacement (ci)
I should have been clear that I was referencing torque calculation, for MEP, there's a HP one too, and will yield different results, because it's based on RPM as well as engine size and the peak HP rating.

Code:
BMEP = (horsepower x 792,000) / (displacement x RPM)
In your example of the two 5.7 liter engines, the torque and where the peak power came would be useful to best decide what the more better engine was, but you wouldn't even need to tell me what the hp/torque/rpm was, I can tell you that head design back in that era of cars was dismal, it's like they took stupid pills when someone told them to make the engine more fuel efficient. well, that and pellet type catalytic converters. God they had some good ideas in the 70s, was everyone stoned the whole time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aschen View Post
I think even 35 would be quite the achievment, and would be shocked if rated any higher
meh, the difference between 35 and 37, or even 40 mpg is best described as minimal. if someone were to look at a car and choose the one that got 37 specifically for that reason, I'd say they are a moron.

35 mpg = 2.85 gallons per 100 miles.
37 mpg = 2.70 gallons per 100 miles.

over 1000 miles you save 1.5 whole gallons of gas. you can get an extra value meal at Mc Donalds once a month with that savings.

40 mpg gets you down to 2.5 gallons per 100 miles. that's an extra value meal, and 2 hot apple pies for desert every 1000 miles.



god damnit, just thinking of this 40 mpg mustang has me salivating!

Last edited by samagon; 03-13-2013 at 12:43 AM.
samagon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 04:55 AM   #323
amdmaxx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 31665
Join Date: Jan 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Northern NJ, USA
Vehicle:
2006 Saab 9-2x Aero
Black

Default

If coyote gets Di with next mustang - it will be a gem of an engine!
amdmaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 08:43 AM   #324
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 amdmaxx View Post
If coyote gets Di with next mustang - it will be a gem of an engine!
I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation though, if it gets 40mpg, you'll be able to eat hot baked apple pie!
samagon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:48 AM   #325
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

Mustang Sally may have to live with a four-banger in 2015

Quote:
Forget Shelbys and Five-Ohs for a minute.

The latest speculation about the 2015 Ford Mustang is a four-cylinder version supposedly bound just for Europe will also be coming to the U.S.

You can mostly thank federal fuel-economy standards for Ford’s having to send us a pony car with a four-banger.

However, according to Road and Track, at least it should be one of the good EcoBoost four-cylinder engines, probably tuned to produce more than 300 horsepower.

Still, EcoBoost 2.0 doesn’t have quite the ring of Boss 429 or 5-liter GT.

Road and Track says 2015 Mustangs – which also will be treated to a pretty radical restyling – will continue to use the 3.7-liter V-6 with 305 horsepower as their base engine.

The top-of-the-line GT will get the 5-liter V-8, but their supplies could be limited. Other automotive publications have reported rumors of Mustang GT mules being spotted in camouflage in Detroit with turbocharged V-6s under their hoods.

The federal government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements will force automakers to sell vehicles that average more than 30 miles per gallon in 2016.

Ford has not commented on any of the speculation about the Mustang.
The rumors continue. Most notably, the part I bolded.
SWP n Gold 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 09:04 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.