[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by ecoswag1990

I don't know what magazine you pulled this one from but it's false. What would even make you think it would make sense that the same car with less HP, more weight and MUCH less torque would be on par with the other car?

The EBs are consistently running better times than the V6 Mustang. Also I'll add that aftermarket support for the EB is insane and it is very easy to take one into the high 12s without putting a kill tune on it.

The 2.0T for the camaro is truly the base model and with the V6 having 50 more HP I would definitely go V6. It just won't be worth it to mod the 4 cylinder just to catch up to the V6. Now against a tuned Ecoboost the camaro V6 will have problems

Look man...I'm not looking to argue. I did not bash so why make it sound like I'm pulling this out of my rear end? All I know is based on what I've read, and based on some videos where they took an EB and a new 2015 V6 and ran them back to back in the 1/4 mile, the EB was only barely faster than the V6 and the V6 actually trapped marginally higher . Maybe they couldn't drive the EB, but it is what it is.

Maybe "in the real world" the EB is trapping consistently better times than the 2011 -2014 V6, but I haven't been paying attention to that, so I'll take your word for it. I choose to compare the EB to the 11-14 V6 b/c it is faster than the new 2015 V6, and it SHOULD be compared in my opinion. The EB is supposed to be an optional performance option over the V6 (which it is) but in stock form doesn't seem to be running much quicker in the 1/4 than the older V6 PP model. The HP difference, and weight difference is negligible. TQ is the main difference, but in stock form the EB falls off somewhat in the higher rpms. The V6 keeps pulling.

[ecoswag1990]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Ecoswag, have you used your track apps? If so, what kind of times have you gotten?

No track apps since being tuned because I'm waiting to get an IRS bushing support kit (steeda or bmr) so I'm not hopping around. I ran 13.82 @ 102.8 with intake and catback when I took it to the track for the first time on the factory everything else

[ecoswag1990]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Look man...I'm not looking to argue. I did not bash so why make it sound like I'm pulling this out of my rear end? All I know is based on what I've read, and based on some videos where they took an EB and a new 2015 V6 and ran them back to back in the 1/4 mile, the EB was only barely faster than the V6 and the V6 actually trapped marginally higher . Maybe they couldn't drive the EB, but it is what it is.

Maybe "in the real world" the EB is trapping consistently better times than the 2011 -2014 V6, but I haven't been paying attention to that, so I'll take your word for it. I choose to compare the EB to the 11-14 V6 b/c it is faster than the new 2015 V6, and it SHOULD be compared in my opinion. The EB is supposed to be an optional performance option over the V6 (which it is) but in stock form doesn't seem to be running much quicker in the 1/4 than the older V6 PP model. The HP difference, and weight difference is negligible. TQ is the main difference, but in stock form the EB falls off somewhat in the higher rpms. The V6 keeps pulling.

The video you are referring to is the American muscle video that they made when they took delivery of the car and ran it at the track with 87 still in the tank. According to ford the EB loses at least 10% of its HP on regular gas

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by ecoswag1990

The video you are referring to is the American muscle video that they made when they took delivery of the car and ran it at the track with 87 still in the tank. According to ford the EB loses at least 10% of its HP on regular gas

That could very well be it.

[ChefBorOzzy]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...al-test-review
Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.3 sec
Zero to 140 mph: 31.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec (Falls off hard with no built up boost)
Standing ¼-mile: 13.9 sec @ 102 mph

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...al-test-review
Zero to 60 mph: 5.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.7 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 25.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.6 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 10.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 7.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 101 mph

Two cars are pretty close to one another in acceleration.. ATS is down on power, but it is lighter. Tested different days.. That's the best time I've seen for the Ecoboost from any publication, but it could be that there is a faster one that I haven't seen.

[ecoswag1990]

I'm not really sure what the point of the magazine racing is here. I'm also not sure why you are so bent on hating on the car. The link below has a dyno chart of the tune I'm running for a stock car. Mine is modified for the mods I have so I should be putting out a bit more. For the fact that I average 32mpg on the highway and 25 mixed this car is a beast

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/...ost-Tuner.html

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by ecoswag1990

I'm not really sure what the point of the magazine racing is here. I'm also not sure why you are so bent on hating on the car. The link below has a dyno chart of the tune I'm running for a stock car. Mine is modified for the mods I have so I should be putting out a bit more. For the fact that I average 32mpg on the highway and 25 mixed this car is a beast

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/...ost-Tuner.html

I'm not hating on the car.. You're hating on the 2.0 Camaro and saying the 2.3 will kill it.. When the stock times for ATS and Ecoboost Mustang show that it is not true. Modding? Totally different and who knows.

I think the turbo 4 and v6 pony cars are damn good bang for the buck for under 30k.

[ecoswag1990]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

I'm not hating on the car.. You're hating on the 2.0 Camaro and saying the 2.3 will kill it.. When the stock times for ATS and Ecoboost Mustang show that it is not true. Modding? Totally different and who knows.

I think the turbo 4 and v6 pony cars are damn good bang for the buck for under 30k.

I'm saying how is a car that puts out far less power and torque going to compete without being at least 100lbs lighter. I don't think the 2.0 in the camaro will be designated for performance as much as it is efficiency

[ChefBorOzzy]

It has 25 less torque and 35 less horsepower.. Mark Reuss said that the 0-60 will be well below 6 seconds on the 2.0.. He reiterated the "Well below" part and that it will surprise the friends across town. The car most likely will weigh over 100 pounds less than the Ecoboost. I'm going to say they'll be pretty even unless Ford boosts the 2.3 up a tad more.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by ecoswag1990

I'm saying how is a car that puts out far less power and torque going to compete without being at least 100lbs lighter. I don't think the 2.0 in the camaro will be designated for performance as much as it is efficiency

It may very well be close to 100 lbs lighter.

[IOMike]

I love that there are two Mustang owners arguing on a Camaro forum.

I think the two turbo 4 cylinder engines will be close. I'm sure the aftermarket is equally large between both.

[Firefighter]

Originally Posted by IOMike

I love that there are two Mustang owners arguing on a Camaro forum.

I think the two turbo 4 cylinder engines will be close. I'm sure the aftermarket is equally large between both.

It's always the same with the Ford Trolls. IDK why they come over to talk crap, I have better things to do than go to a Mustang site and tell them how good our cars are.

I tell them every once in a while in person though. Well my tail lights do... LoL

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by Firefighter

It's always the same with the Ford Trolls. IDK why they come over to talk crap, I have better things to do than go to a Mustang site and tell them how good our cars are.

I tell them every once in a while in person though. Well my tail lights do... LoL

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

Have you seen some of the Mustang6g.com threads? Plenty of GM trolls there. A few members from here got talked to about going over there and trolling.

[Firefighter]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Have you seen some of the Mustang6g.com threads? Plenty of GM trolls there. A few members from here got talked to about going over there and trolling.

Well that's crap, I wish they wouldn't do that its stupid. We have more then a few threads where its just full of BS from the other team and to be honest it gets irritating.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk