11-21-2013, 10:47 AM | #29 |
Drives: 2010 SS Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal
Posts: 2,197
|
__________________
|
11-21-2013, 11:00 AM | #30 |
Drives: 2015 Mustang GT Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cranberry Township, PA
Posts: 1,098
|
the 4cyl ecoboost going in the new mustang has a hp rating higher than both the current V6 Mustang and Camaro offerings. They are not using a 2.3L Turbo, but a 2.5L Turbo 4, at around 320-330hp, combine this with the rumored 250-400lb weight loss of the Mustang in the S550 chassis, and it will be a potent base car.
So Al's statement of fighting for every HP he can, isn't really valid. Unless he intends to use the 4.2L V6 TT as the base Camaro engine for 6th gen, which I somewhat doubt. GM Accountants. |
11-21-2013, 11:05 AM | #31 |
Drives: Camaros................ Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seven Fields, PA (Pittsburgh)
Posts: 4,523
|
Wait a minute.... I'm not going to confirm or deny anything - BUT - this thread is very disturbing to me - because once again - someone at GM says something and people 'extrapolate' (....I've been burned so much that I need to wear a flame suit anytime I travel.....) Please show me where in the article that Al says "no 4 cylinder engine" -- he MAY have said that he's fighting for every single horsepower - and I do know that's true........ Someone mentioned CAFE - CAFE law provides a 54.6 MPG average by the mid 2020s........that average includes LD Silverado and SUVs......think about that for a minute....... I don't think ANYTHING is off the table as we move forward. For those who I've talked to personally - I've given my OPINION that V8s will be around for a while - BUT -- because of CAFE - the cost of the V8 is going to become much more expensive...... You can still get blistering performance, but it MAY NOT be always from a V8 engine. So unless you have a direct quote from Al - and I do not believe anyone does -- take this thread with a grain of salt. Let's not turn this into a "Panic du Jour"...........
__________________
|
11-21-2013, 11:07 AM | #32 |
Drives: 2015 Mustang GT Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cranberry Township, PA
Posts: 1,098
|
Reduce the weight of the vehicle, the Turbo 4 becomes viable, and can even provide a HP bump over the NA V6. Which is exactly what Ford did. Reduce weight, and increase HP.
There's nothing wrong with "following" Ford in this formula, as it is common sense, nothing ground breaking. |
11-21-2013, 11:08 AM | #33 |
Drives: someday a convertible Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 266
|
320HP + out of a 4 cyc turbo.. That's impresive.. Dec 5th.. tic toc tic toc.
|
11-21-2013, 11:09 AM | #34 | |
Drives: 2015 Mustang GT Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cranberry Township, PA
Posts: 1,098
|
Quote:
What we know is, the Focus ST uses a 2.0L Turbo at 250hp, Ford stated the Mustang will have a larger/more powerful 4cyl ecoboost motor. Last edited by Seer; 11-21-2013 at 12:45 PM. |
|
11-21-2013, 11:13 AM | #35 |
Drives: Camaros................ Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seven Fields, PA (Pittsburgh)
Posts: 4,523
|
something else to consider:
Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps there ARE some non-traditional buyers who would buy a Mustang with a 4 cylinder? Not everyone wants a 400+ horsepower V8 - or, for that matter, a 300+ hp V6? As a product planner - one needs to consider this........
__________________
|
11-21-2013, 11:16 AM | #36 | |
Drives: 2015 Mustang GT Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cranberry Township, PA
Posts: 1,098
|
Quote:
4cyl Turbo is the logical step for them to offer this engine. Ford has their eyes set on the BMW 4 Series and Audi 5 Series with the new Mustang to fight it out with in Europe, as well as compete with the Camaro here and forgive me for saying this but with it's confirmed weight loss, new suspension setup and brakes, perhaps even some of the Corvettes as well. |
|
11-21-2013, 11:24 AM | #37 |
7 year Cancer Survivor!
Drives: 17 Cruze RS, 07 G6 GT, 99 Astro Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 21,547
|
Isn't the L99 Camaro a 4 Cylinder at least part of the time?
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...
The Bird is the word! |
11-21-2013, 11:56 AM | #38 |
Well said
__________________
Current Mods:
CAI Cold Air Intake; SLP Loudmouth II; Billet Grille; 20% Tint; Ambient Footwell Lighting Future Mods: Supercharger or Twin Snails; Stage 2 Cam; Lowering Springs; Sport Suspension; 21" Vossen CV3's; Blacked out taillights/side markers/reverse lights/fog lights/turn signals; Switchback LED turn signals; Fog light Halo's; Afterburner Taillights; Underbody Lights |
|
11-21-2013, 12:22 PM | #39 |
Drives: 2020 ZL1 1LE Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,348
|
Great leadership by Oppenheiser. The Camaro is a distinct performance car product. Putting a 4 cyl in a BMW 6 series makes no sense either. GM can build another rear drive product that uses a 4 cyl, but don't call it a Camaro.
I think the Mustang Ecoboost 4 cyl will have the same outcome as the Ecoboost V-6 in trucks: same or worse real world mpg at the cost of more complexity and reliability. This CAFE thing is such a damn candy a$$ way of managing demand by controlling the supply of vehicles. Just let the cost of fuel rise and let consumers make their choices. Australia has double the fuel costs we have but there are still plenty of V-8s. CAFE reminds me of the 55 mph speed limit. |
11-21-2013, 12:33 PM | #40 | |
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
Quote:
Where'd you see this? 2.0 is currently the larger of their 4 cylinder turbo options (here in the U.S.) The 2.3 is a new engine (at least for us) and is going into the new Lincoln MKC crossover first with 270HP and 300TQ. It is then expected to be used in the Mustang with a more aggressive tune. Probably in the realm of 290+ HP and 320+ TQ I really don't see Ford using 2.0, 2.3, and a 2.5 litre 4 cylinder turbo engines...it seems a bit overkill but if you've got some proof I'd be curious to see it. Mustang6g follows this stuff pretty dang closely, and I see no mention of a 2.5 there. Anyways...if GM uses an N/A V6 versus a T4 from Ford, the V6 will always be at somewhat of a TQ disadvantage, but I'm expecting at least 330 or more HP (hopefully 340 or more like the Hyndai Genesis coupe) so the V6 shouldn't be at a HP disadvantage. It just won't be as quick off the line if this is the case.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!) |
|
11-21-2013, 12:46 PM | #41 | ||
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
Quote:
I'll even admit I'd likely buy a V6 (just because I'm partial to this particular engine) over a compariable turbo 4. Now if the T4 was much faster...well then that could change my mind. But I see the potential of a powerful T4 engine in a car with a relatively light Alpha based chasis. It would make for a heck of a good car. If GM doesn't want to put one in a Camaro, I can see a market for a smaller light coupe with a powerful turbo 4 engine....something that would equal the BRZ/FRS in handling but pull away from it in the straights. Quote:
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!) |
||
11-21-2013, 12:46 PM | #42 |
Drives: 2012 2SS/RS M6 Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 696
|
Never sell your V8 my friends...
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|