Turbo vs Turbo - Page 2

BigEnos · 06-06-2016, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

It seems like a running trend that all these new pony cars are under-tired...

GT500? Not enough tire

Camaro SS? Not enough tire (but does super well with what it has)

Mustang GT? Not enough tire (both PP and non-PP cars)

Hellcat? Nowhere near enough tire

Tires must be a significant cost saving point for OEM's these days.

In some cases (clearly not with a Hellcat or GT500) I think they under-tire in an attempt to maximize EPA ratings. Huge-arse tires definitely can imact MPGs, and maybe they figure if you care that much you'll just replace the wheel/tire pkg anyway.

SpeedIsLife · 06-06-2016, 01:41 PM

So in this case..the EB mustang was producing 275HP and 300TQ.

I think that explains the power loss and why it kind of fell on it's face in the 1/4.

ChefBorOzzy · 06-06-2016, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

So in this case..the EB mustang was producing 275HP and 300TQ.

I think that explains the power loss and why it kind of fell on it's face in the 1/4.

They should have run it with 91.. Another thing is that Ford actually rates the car with 93 for max power.. I think most everyone else does 91.

SpeedIsLife · 06-06-2016, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

They should have run it with 91.. Another thing is that Ford actually rates the car with 93 for max power.. I think most everyone else does 91.

Yeah.

You can't even get 93 here in Oregon..the best I've seen in 92 at a Mobile station..otherwise 91 is cream of the crop.

Jeffro19 · 06-06-2016, 01:51 PM

The first thing I noticed that the mustang seemed slow but then I saw the put in 87 octane gas. Crappy move by MT. The acceleration times would have been much closer.

ChefBorOzzy · 06-06-2016, 02:07 PM

If Ford recommends 87 on window sticker, I'm blaming Ford.. If they put 91, I'm blaming MT..
So, which one is it?

SpeedIsLife · 06-06-2016, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

If Ford recommends 87 on window sticker, I'm blaming Ford.. If they put 91, I'm blaming MT..
So, which one is it?

The EPA figures were at 87

The power figures rated and quoted by Ford are with premium. It's really pretty clear..

SuperSound · 06-06-2016, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

The EPA figures were at 87

The power figures rated and quoted by Ford are with premium. It's really pretty clear..

And according to Ford, they recommend 93 and no "official" power numbers were released for 87. So tells me 87 is only to be used when premium isn't available.

If Ford used 87 for EPA tests just goes back to all the controversy with EB engines not returning rated fuel economy numbers in the real world.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

ChefBorOzzy · 06-06-2016, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

The EPA figures were at 87

The power figures rated and quoted by Ford are with premium. It's really pretty clear..

So they put 87 on sticker so that fuel costs look lower, but then you have to put different fuel into it to get the actual performance.. Interesting.

KMPrenger · 06-06-2016, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

They should have run it with 91.. Another thing is that Ford actually rates the car with 93 for max power.. I think most everyone else does 91.

I'm assuming it makes the max power on 91...or is there still a difference between 93 and 91 on this car???

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

So they put 87 on sticker so that fuel costs look lower, but then you have to put different fuel into it to get the actual performance.. Interesting.

Yeah...that would be very interesting indeed.

shaffe · 06-06-2016, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperSound

And according to Ford, they recommend 93 and no "official" power numbers were released for 87. So tells me 87 is only to be used when premium isn't available.

If Ford used 87 for EPA tests just goes back to all the controversy with EB engines not returning rated fuel economy numbers in the real world.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I think it kind of says it can run on 87 and it won't hurt it but Ford was very clear that all power figures were on 93 Octane.

It is a crappy way to do it

Bongos2U · 06-06-2016, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaffe

I think it kind of says it can run on 87 and it won't hurt it but Ford was very clear that all power figures were on 93 Octane.

It is a crappy way to do it

Bingo. I've said for awhile that Ford is pulling a fast one. Using 87 octane for it's fuel economy numbers, which pretty much destroys performance, and 93 octane (which is kind of like trying to find a unicorn, most gas stations do not carry it, at least here in California) for it's performance numbers.

It's deceiving, hardly anybody reads what that little asterisk, * , means next to the HP / Torque numbers...

The 2.3L EcoBoost engine delivers 310 hp* and 320 lb.-ft. of torque.*

*Tested with 93-octane fuel.

ChevyRules · 06-06-2016, 04:22 PM

What's weird about it is normally running an octane level below what is recommended for peak performance also kills fuel economy. So I guess Ford has two maps. If it detects 87, it runs a map set up for good fuel economy. If it detects 91/93, the map goes to power.

mrbug111 · 06-06-2016, 09:53 PM

Comparison: 2016 Chevrolet Camaro RS vs. 2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost via MOTOR TREND News for iPhone
http://www.motortrend.com/news/compa...tang-ecoboost/

06-06-2016, 01:51 PM	#19
Jeffro19 Drives: 2018 ZL1 6M, Silverado High Country Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: San Antonio, Tx Posts: 2,101	The first thing I noticed that the mustang seemed slow but then I saw the put in 87 octane gas. Crappy move by MT. The acceleration times would have been much closer. __________________ Previous Camaro's - 2002 Z28 6 spd manual, T tops, Sebring Silver - 2010 2SS 6 spd manual, Cyber Gray Metallic Current Vehicles - 2018 ZL1 Red Hot 6 spd manual, Carbon Hood, Sunroof 2019 Silverado High Country, Daily Driver

06-06-2016, 09:53 PM	#28
mrbug111 Drives: 2016 Turbo Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: Virginia Posts: 31	Motor Trend Turbo Comparison Comparison: 2016 Chevrolet Camaro RS vs. 2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost via MOTOR TREND News for iPhone http://www.motortrend.com/news/compa...tang-ecoboost/

06-06-2016, 01:41 PM	#16
SpeedIsLife Drives: Current Camaro-less Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Oregon Posts: 3,242	So in this case..the EB mustang was producing 275HP and 300TQ. I think that explains the power loss and why it kind of fell on it's face in the 1/4.

06-06-2016, 02:07 PM	#20
ChefBorOzzy Drives: 2016 F150 Join Date: May 2014 Location: Iowa Posts: 2,196	If Ford recommends 87 on window sticker, I'm blaming Ford.. If they put 91, I'm blaming MT.. So, which one is it?

06-06-2016, 04:22 PM	#27
ChevyRules Drives: 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR Join Date: May 2016 Location: USA Posts: 979	What's weird about it is normally running an octane level below what is recommended for peak performance also kills fuel economy. So I guess Ford has two maps. If it detects 87, it runs a map set up for good fuel economy. If it detects 91/93, the map goes to power.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password