Al Oppenheiser: No 4 cylinder for the 6th Gen Camaro.

[Wildcat]

I think you are drastically underestimating people who want:
1.) A turbo 4 cylinder in something that isn't a FWD shitbox or an AWD boost buggy
2.) A fuel efficient yet torquey and fast coupe
3.) A balanced car (weight wise and handling wise)
4.) A light weight car

I fit into all four categories in spite of already owning a V8 powered 2009 Mustang GT. I'm looking at it because it fits my power goals far better than the 420 HP 5.0L does and it isn't going to be an aftermarket black hole like the V6 is. It may not channel "SVO" and beat up on asthmatic V8's because of a fuel crisis, but it will definitely be a better handling car because of the better balance in the car and lower overall weight. For autocross duty on narrowish street tires, it is going to be a larger advantage and one I look forward to.

The worst thing Ford could do is market it solely as the "Eco friendly" option and make the car a performance turd with tiny brakes (fine for autocross but not for track days), weezy power and poor response to modifications, soft springs and bushings that compromise geometry and so on. All fingers point in the opposite direction, thankfully, but nothing is for sure until December 5th when things get announced.

I would be THRILLED to have a 2.3L in my driveway, especially given the fact that I'm sure a 2015 2.3L 4 cylinder will definitely smoke anything made before 2010 that isn't some insane special edition (See: GT500/Cobra). 05-10 GT's will be at a huge disadvantage to the lighter car and you can't even use torque as an advantage when most EB motors are pulling peak torque at 3000 RPM when your mod motor is pulling it at 4500 (or was it 4250?) and peak power is in the same range. So less weight, slightly less torque overall but it comes on early in the power band, more or slightly less HP and about the same peak RPM... etc. If 310/310 is true for power, and the rumored 3200-3300 weights are true then they will be monsters in their own right and it wont take much tweaking to really open one up.

That and it should be a relatively unique car to own with hopefully more character than the current V6's do...

THIS.

I think the 4 cylinder should do quite well. A well sorted chassis coupled with a tuneable and gutsy turbo 4 sounds like quite a nice package for those who appreciate performance but don't require the top of the line GT.

Think about the competition for the turbo 4 car. The turbo 4 Genesis coupe is a dog compared to the 6 cylinder model. The BR-Z and FR-S are nice cars with great handling and fun to drive factor, but they really don't have enough in the power department. The new WRX redesign is okay; they used some nice cues from the concept car on the front end, but the rest of the car just looks like a plain jane Impreza.

If the 310/310 rumor is correct, this will be a performance bargain for buyers who don't want a base V6 but want a solid peforming machine without the 35-45K price tag you'll probably see on most GTs

Sponsored

 

[S550Boss]

Keep in mind that the EcoBoost system will ensure that most of the 310 torque is available throughout the entire power band.
And that there has rarely been a better autocross Mustang than the original SVO. Or one that was so well balanced in weight distribution.

 

[Black GT]

I will drive a V8 car until the end. Which ever ends first me or the V8.

 

[Whiskey11]

Keep in mind that the EcoBoost system will ensure that most of the 310 torque is available throughout the entire power band.
And that there has rarely been a better autocross Mustang than the original SVO. Or one that was so well balanced in weight distribution.

There are a lot better autocross Mustangs than the original SVO or Turbo GT's.... I only know of 3 Nationally competitive 2.3L Turbo powered production cars... one is a Merkur XR4Ti, one is a Turbo Coupe Thunderbird, and the other is an old Turbo GT Mustang. Two of those are in C-Prepared, the other is in SM (Merkur). Every other Mustang is going to be V8 based. I'm struggling to think of someone who is trying out the V6 Mustangs.

 

[S550Boss]

All of those with 4 cylinders up front, and a better weight balance than a V-8. The V-8 Mustangs have a terrible fr/rr weight balance in the FOX days, not much better in the SN95 days, and still pretty poor now. The close this car gets to 50/50, which unfortunately it won't be able to achieve in the S550 (but is at least better in the S550 2.3), the better it will handle. Well balanced cars are far better all around.

 

[Whiskey11]

All of those with 4 cylinders up front, and a better weight balance than a V-8. The V-8 Mustangs have a terrible fr/rr weight balance in the FOX days, not much better in the SN95 days, and still pretty poor now. The close this car gets to 50/50, which unfortunately it won't be able to achieve in the S550 (but is at least better in the S550 2.3), the better it will handle. Well balanced cars are far better all around.

My 09 GT Premium was 52.6/47.4 @ 3425lbs with an 1/8th tank of gas. That weight distribution actually goes pretty close to 50/50 with a full tank of gas but the added weight was a bigger detriment than the weight distribution could "cure". The S197 is a pretty well balanced chassis considering the engines it sports up front and I certainly wouldn't fret over 53/47 weight distribution in V8 form if the S550 had that. The highly vaunted E90 M3 is 51.2/48.8 and the E92 M3 (Sedan) is 52.2/47.8.

That said, I think the weight distribution will be as good as the S197 chassis is with the V8 up front if not better. Even if the IRS unit mysteriously weighs the same as the live axle it replaces (possible), there are other things structurally that are changing that could push the car closer to 50/50. I would hope that the 2.3L is 50/50 or 49/51 but we wont know until Ford either releases the specs or we get them in our hands.

 

[S550Boss]

That's unlikely since Ford own documentation lists the fr/rr balance of the 3,632 pound 2012 Boss 302 at 55/45.
The 2010 4.6 GT at 54/46 and 3533 pounds.
The 2005 4.6 GT at 57/43 and 3483 pounds.

 

[Whiskey11]

That's unlikely since Ford own documentation lists the fr/rr balance of the 3,632 pound 2012 Boss 302 at 55/45.
The 2010 4.6 GT at 54/46 and 3533 pounds.
The 2005 4.6 GT at 57/43 and 3483 pounds.

You are welcome to dispute that all you want but the corner balance sheet does not lie... My car, with an 1/8th tank of gas, Ground Control Coilovers, Fays2 Watts link, Strano 35mm front swaybar (stock rear bar), stock wheels with 245/45/18 Dunlop Direzza Z1 Sport Star Specs and a 270lb driver had a 52.6/47.4 weight distribution.

I will get a copy of the sheet as soon as I have the time to.

 

[thePill]

My Brembo pack Premium GT with 401a interior weighed 3555lbs with "50 Miles to E" of fuel (advertised 3620 Base). It had a near 52/48 with the same level of fuel. Could the OEM figures count one passenger/driver? Minus AC and your good to go if your only Heat racing.

 

[Whiskey11]

My Brembo pack Premium GT with 401a interior weighed 3555lbs with "50 Miles to E" of fuel (advertised 3620 Base). It had a near 52/48 with the same level of fuel. Could the OEM figures count one passenger/driver? Minus AC and your good to go if your only Heat racing.

Glad I'm not the only one who has an S197 near 52/48 With fuller fuel loads the car's do get admirably close to 50/50.

Unfortunately I can't find my corner balance sheet and where it normally is (with my shock dyno plots) it is not there so I'm sure I left it at my other home and wont be getting it back for some time.

 

[PremiumT]

Any guesses what the weight distribution will be on the I4 mustang with a full tank of gas? Should be pretty close to 50/50 I would think. The IRS alone should improve it on all trims.

 

[thePill]

Any guesses what the weight distribution will be on the I4 mustang with a full tank of gas? Should be pretty close to 50/50 I would think. The IRS alone should improve it on all trims.

All I know about the Eco4's are is that they are lighter than a V6 even with the turbo. It should be close to 50/50...

I know a lot of people grip about 50/50 but never pay attention to the balance on all four corners. Did you know the ZL1's front passenger side is nearly 200lbs lighter than the drivers side? Even though it has an advertise near 50/50?

That is NOT balance... The 13' GT500 had a better left/right balance then that... If Ford decides to throw the turbo on the left side with the exhaust manifold and ESC, it could have a heavy front drivers side bias.. Even though it is a 50/50 front/rear balance, it could suck left to right (which is what road racers should be concerned about). Drag racers could benefit from a slightly heavier front like a 52/48 or 54/46 due to weight transfer under heavy acceleration... but anything slower than 12s would be better off with weight in the rear (little weight transfer).

 

[S550Boss]

Any guesses what the weight distribution will be on the I4 mustang with a full tank of gas? Should be pretty close to 50/50 I would think. The IRS alone should improve it on all trims.

It's going to be fair, since the wheelbase is the same and engine placement is identical. But the rear overhang is a bit shorter.

 

[Whiskey11]

All I know about the Eco4's are is that they are lighter than a V6 even with the turbo. It should be close to 50/50...

I know a lot of people grip about 50/50 but never pay attention to the balance on all four corners. Did you know the ZL1's front passenger side is nearly 200lbs lighter than the drivers side? Even though it has an advertise near 50/50?

That is NOT balance... The 13' GT500 had a better left/right balance then that... If Ford decides to throw the turbo on the left side with the exhaust manifold and ESC, it could have a heavy front drivers side bias.. Even though it is a 50/50 front/rear balance, it could suck left to right (which is what road racers should be concerned about). Drag racers could benefit from a slightly heavier front like a 52/48 or 54/46 due to weight transfer under heavy acceleration... but anything slower than 12s would be better off with weight in the rear (little weight transfer).

Left/Right balance is not as important as cross corner weight balance is. You want 50/50 cross corner weights (left front to right rear, right front to left rear) and in some cases that happens where the driver's side is heavier than the passenger side. That is both normal and acceptable as the cross weights are the critical weight.

Found my corner weights:
1030|FRONT|942
932 |REAR |842

Total weight 3747 (with 275lb driver comes out to 3442lbs). Cross weights are 49.99% left cross and 50.01% right cross but the overall left/right bias is 52.36/47.64 with front to rear distribution of 52.63/47.37. Believe it or not that is 100% the correct way to setup the car. There is equal percentage weight over the front and rear driver side tires, and the cross corner weights are equal so it has no wedge in it and there is no thrust bias. My car was corner balanced by a race team who races Vipers and has built probably 20 or so race vipers for various people and races their own and I trust their work 100%.

One thing, these weights were taken before I added the torque arm to the car (approximately 20lbs basically to the rear) and before I added Enkei PF01's in 18x9 with 265/40/18 Hankook RS3's to the car (which dropped 35lbs) so take off 15lbs to see my rough current weight for the car. Again, that's with an 1/8th tank of gas and 100% stock interior.

Granted, my weights aren't quite 200lbs different side to side but it is 100lbs which is not an insignificant amount of weight. The car drives beautifully though.

 

[T-5 killer]

So its 1974 all over again. Ford sees change in the wind and went to a smaller lighter car with a 4 cyl and just like '74 WILL kill GM in sales. GM stuck with the heavy fbody till '81 and there sales showed it.

Sponsored