[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by 90503

Just sayin' a 4cyl would probably add to sales numbers whether by itself or if offered along with a V-6....

Don't see it. A turbo-4 would cost more than a V6 and perform the same. The EcoBoost Mustang is $1,500 more than the V6...

[mt3130]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Don't see it. A turbo-4 would cost more than a V6 and perform the same. The EcoBoost Mustang is $1,500 more than the V6...

That's because Ford slotted the 2.0T above the V6. For GM, the 2.0T will likely be slotted below the V6.

Ford prices all of its ecoboost engines as premium options.

[Number 3]

FYI, there are a LOT of reasons the Corvette is profitable at lower volumes (assumption by the way, GM never announces profitability by model) and price is only small portion of it.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by mt3130

That's because Ford slotted the 2.0T above the V6. For GM, the 2.0T will likely be slotted below the V6.

Ford prices all of its ecoboost engines as premium options.

2.3L Ecoboost currently only exists in two Ford models, the Mustang and Lincoln MKC (as an option). That right there will make it expensive since it's not in widespread use. In comparison, the 2.0T used by GM is 7 models. That helps drive down cost especially if the 6th gen gets a much more advanced V6, like the LGX.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by mt3130

That's because Ford slotted the 2.0T above the V6. For GM, the 2.0T will likely be slotted below the V6.

Ford prices all of its ecoboost engines as premium options.

They didn't "slot" it that way, it's just that turbo engines cost more than non-FI engines. They ended up keeping the V6 because it's significantly cheaper.

The fact that they were originally going to get rid of their V6 but couldn't because of the price difference, along with the relative performance of both engines, should tell you all you need to know about turbo 4's and V6's.

[John Wilde]

This chart is interesting but not an accurate representation of actual horsepower. The early models that were "rated" in SAE Gross HP.
A lot of those early motors were making less power than some of the V6 and
Turbo 4s now. I love the classics too, but sometimes our memories are better than the reality.

Borrowed from Wiki:

SAE gross power[edit]
Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube test headers in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.

SAE net power[edit]
In the United States, the term bhp fell into disuse in 1971–72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net power testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold.

SAE certified power[edit]
In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723.[25] This test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allowed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take place in an ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved third party.

A few manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota switched to the new ratings immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 to 469 hp (328 to 350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 to 190 hp (160 to 140 kW). The company's Lexus ES 330 and Camry SE V6 were previously rated at 225 hp (168 kW) but the ES 330 dropped to 218 hp (163 kW) while the Camry declined to 210 hp (160 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 to 505 hp (373 to 377 kW).

While Toyota and Honda are retesting their entire vehicle lineups, other automakers generally are retesting only those with updated powertrains. For example, the 2006 Ford Five Hundred is rated at 203 horsepower, the same as that of 2005 model. However, the 2006 rating does not reflect the new SAE testing procedure as Ford is not going to spend the extra expense of retesting its existing engines. Over time, most automakers are expected to comply with the new guidelines.

SAE tightened its horsepower rules to eliminate the opportunity for engine manufacturers to manipulate factors affecting performance such as how much oil was in the crankcase, engine control system calibration, and whether an engine was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, such can add up to a change in horsepower ratings. A road test editor at Edmunds.com, John Di Pietro, said decreases in horsepower ratings for some '06 models are not that dramatic. For vehicles like a midsize family sedan, it is likely that the reputation of the manufacturer will be more important.[26]

Originally Posted by 90503

...Just for fun....

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

They didn't "slot" it that way, it's just that turbo engines cost more than non-FI engines. They ended up keeping the V6 because it's significantly cheaper.

The fact that they were originally going to get rid of their V6 but couldn't because of the price difference, along with the relative performance of both engines, should tell you all you need to know about turbo 4's and V6's.

http://blog.americanmuscle.com/2015-...atform-leaked/

There were definitely rumors circulating before the reveal that the V6 would be replaced by the turbo. But to me it seems clear Ford was working hard to make sure the Ecoboost outperformed the V6 so they could justify it being slotted above the V6 and costing more. 305HP V6 vs 310HP 2.3T, that's just too coincidental. Especially when you consider the 2.3L already existed in the MKC but was rated at 285hp. The Ecoboost mustangs also get extra standard features like power seats, better interior trim, active noise cancellation, LED fogs, and rear spoiler. Not to mention the options you can only get on the Ecoboost or higher. Seems to me Ford did everything they could to justify putting the Ecoboost above the V6. All that tells me the $1500 difference in price means they both cost about the same. Either that or the V6 is marked up more than it costs, and the Ecoboost is being sold closer to actual cost.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

http://blog.americanmuscle.com/2015-...atform-leaked/

There were definitely rumors circulating before the reveal that the V6 would be replaced by the turbo. But to me it seems clear Ford was working hard to make sure the Ecoboost outperformed the V6 so they could justify it being slotted above the V6 and costing more. 305HP V6 vs 310HP 2.3T, that's just too coincidental.

They also dialed back the V6. It used to be rated at 310HP.

[mt3130]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

http://blog.americanmuscle.com/2015-...atform-leaked/

There were definitely rumors circulating before the reveal that the V6 would be replaced by the turbo. But to me it seems clear Ford was working hard to make sure the Ecoboost outperformed the V6 so they could justify it being slotted above the V6 and costing more. 305HP V6 vs 310HP 2.3T, that's just too coincidental. Especially when you consider the 2.3L already existed in the MKC but was rated at 285hp. The Ecoboost mustangs also get extra standard features like power seats, better interior trim, active noise cancellation, LED fogs, and rear spoiler. Not to mention the options you can only get on the Ecoboost or higher. Seems to me Ford did everything they could to justify putting the Ecoboost above the V6. All that tells me the $1500 difference in price means they both cost about the same. Either that or the V6 is marked up more than it costs, and the Ecoboost is being sold closer to actual cost.

Thank you. Ford definitely wanted the turbo 4 to be above the v6. The turbo 4 May cost more to produce, but it certainly isn't much more if the MSRP difference is only $1,500 and it includes all the stuff SuperSound mentioned.