Is it too early to wish for the 3.5EB?

[Goblue]

I was really hoping the the 2.3EB was going to be able to go higher in the hp range than it looks like it will be able to. With a tune, cai & cat back it looks like it won't come close to 360hp. The turbo looks like it will be the same choke point that it is on the 2.0EB. To make real power the turbo has to be changed out which is an expensive mod. The 3.5EB would start at the 365 hp mark. Then with a tune, cai & catback you could be over 400 hp with gobs of torque and reasonable gas mileage. The 2.3EB car is going to be good but will be mauled by a lot of other 4 cyl cars like the Focus ST, GTI, WRX, etc. The 2.3EB looks like it will be the base engine of the future. So when will we see the real mid level engine the 3.5EB appear? MY 2016? 17?

Sponsored

 

[Wildcat]

I was really hoping the the 2.3EB was going to be able to go higher in the hp range than it looks like it will be able to. With a tune, cai & cat back it looks like it won't come close to 360hp. The turbo looks like it will be the same choke point that it is on the 2.0EB. To make real power the turbo has to be changed out which is an expensive mod. The 3.5EB would start at the 365 hp mark. Then with a tune, cai & catback you could be over 400 hp with gobs of torque and reasonable gas mileage. The 2.3EB car is going to be good but will be mauled by a lot of other 4 cyl cars like the Focus ST, GTI, WRX, etc. The 2.3EB looks like it will be the base engine of the future. So when will we see the real mid level engine the 3.5EB appear? MY 2016? 17?

Mauled by a Focus ST? Yeah, I doubt it. Unless you mean a modded ST vs a stock Ecoboost. Or do you mean the upcoming Focus RS?

A GTI or WRX might come close in certain performance measures, but neither will outright beat the Ecoboost Mustang.

I would think the 3.5 EB would be saved for a specialty model.

 

[Spartan]

The 2.3 has been getting stellar reviews. And with the mods coming, some are saying it's going to be closer to 350 HP. Also from the Focus sites..

UPDATE: We have additional details about the upcoming 2016 Focus RS from another trusted source, including power output, so let's start with that. With the Mustang's V8 holding down a 435 hp spot at the top of the pony car pecking order (for now, until the 2016 Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 emerges), the Focus RS is free to turn up the horsepower wick. Since the 2.3-liter Ecoboost is easily capable of more than its 310 hp output in the Mustang, which was dictated more by fuel economy concerns than anything else, the RS is free to pump out between 325 and 350 hp. The higher figure is more likely. This is because as a low-volume, niche product that doesn't compete with the Mustang GT, there's no reason to hold the Focus RS back.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=87556&postcount=1

I would think the 3.5 EB would be saved for a specialty model.

2.7 or 3.5 is probably going to be slated between the 2.3 and GT down the road.

 

[Wildcat]

2.7 or 3.5 is probably going to be slated between the 2.3 and GT down the road.

But how do you get that to work from a sales standpoint? There's only 7K separating a base Ecoboost from a base GT. I would think it would be difficult to shoehorn another model in between them. And I can't see Ford offering three engine choices on mass produced Mustangs. They barely convinced themselves to keep the 3.7, and that was mostly for fleets.

Isn't the 2.7 slated as Ford's new truck/SUV motor (F-150, Edge, maybe new Explorer?)?

Just doesn't seem like the numbers make sense from a business perspective.

 

[JonnyMustang]

I own a 3.5EB and know two people that have the motor as well. It's a lot of fun but it gets crappy gas mileage. It'd probably be worse than the 5.0.

 

[Seabee1973]

I own a 3.5EB and know two people that have the motor as well. It's a lot of fun but it gets crappy gas mileage. It'd probably be worse than the 5.0.

yeah but that engine is also lugging around a 6k lb truck... The power to weight ratio sucks and to get that next to the 5.0 in the F150 is only a matter of maybe 2mpg on the highway... there is no question it may even be worse than the 5.0 when you have a load

 

[cosmo]

The 3.5 EB is a huge motor. Larger than the 5.0L, and is a premium model to the 5.0 in the trucks. I can't see too many mustang fans paying a 3k+ premium to the GT for the 3.5EB. Let alone getting that engine to fit would cost Ford a pretty penny, as it would need to be a vehicle specific 3.5.

If anything, you might see the 2.7 EB phase out the 3.7 NA, and become the stepping stone between the 2.3 and the 5.0. That or they might look into making a 5.0 EB, and investigate the cost effectiveness between the mustang and the trucks and see if there is a business model there. I highly doubt it, but it's a possibility if the 5.2 voodoo doesn't work out (which it appears it isn't).

 

[Goblue]

Mauled by a Focus ST? Yeah, I doubt it. Unless you mean a modded ST vs a stock Ecoboost. Or do you mean the upcoming Focus RS?

A GTI or WRX might come close in certain performance measures, but neither will outright beat the Ecoboost Mustang.

I would think the 3.5 EB would be saved for a specialty model.

Haha. Don't take my word for it. Jut look at Car & Drivers numbers four all four of them. All three of those models are as fast as the Mustang EB to 60 mph and FASTER through the 1/4 mile. Their handling numbers are just as good or better as is the braking numbers. The GTI with a stage one tune will hit almost 110 in the quarter mile. That was part of the point I was making. That the 2.3EB while being a good and fun car will fall right in the midst of some good performing cars at the same price range or cheaper that will have a bigger upside with mods. If the 2.3 came with a bigger turbo with 350hp stock and that could be tuned for more power then it would be an unquestioned hit. As is it will be no faster than any of the 2.0 liter cars I mentioned and won't surpass any of them mod for mod without going to a bigger aftermarket turbo. That is part of why I think the EB is a bit of a disappointment.

 

[xlover]

Yes

 

[4thstang]

I own a 3.5EB and know two people that have the motor as well. It's a lot of fun but it gets crappy gas mileage. It'd probably be worse than the 5.0.

Really?
I have a 2010 SHO and average 28-29 mpg highway at 70-75 and 30+ in flat interstates. Better that the EPA estimates.
Around town it's only 15-16, but it's so much fun, it's hard not to get into the boost with it, thereby killing the mileage.

Brian S.
06 Tungsten GT vert

 

[JonnyMustang]

Really?
I have a 2010 SHO and average 28-29 mpg highway at 70-75 and 30+ in flat interstates. Better that the EPA estimates.
Around town it's only 15-16, but it's so much fun, it's hard not to get into the boost with it, thereby killing the mileage.

Brian S.
06 Tungsten GT vert

I stay out of the boost in my Flex and still have only maxed out at 21.3 mpg.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

Really?
I have a 2010 SHO and average 28-29 mpg highway at 70-75 and 30+ in flat interstates. Better that the EPA estimates.
Around town it's only 15-16, but it's so much fun, it's hard not to get into the boost with it, thereby killing the mileage.

This was my experience with my 09 GTI. We have a lot of flat interstates around here, and 30-31 was easy. But so was 18 around town, or when getting with it on the back roads. Boosted cars are even more sensitive to throttle than NA cars when it comes to mileage.

(That's why an EB truck is a bad idea. Sorry, Ford. Trucks spend their lives loaded and/or pulling stuff, and therefore on the boost and sucking fuel. No matter the EPA ratings, real-world mileage tends to the terrible.)

 

[Malikona]

Haha. Don't take my word for it. Jut look at Car & Drivers numbers four all four of them. All three of those models are as fast as the Mustang EB to 60 mph and FASTER through the 1/4 mile. Their handling numbers are just as good or better as is the braking numbers. The GTI with a stage one tune will hit almost 110 in the quarter mile. That was part of the point I was making. That the 2.3EB while being a good and fun car will fall right in the midst of some good performing cars at the same price range or cheaper that will have a bigger upside with mods. If the 2.3 came with a bigger turbo with 350hp stock and that could be tuned for more power then it would be an unquestioned hit. As is it will be no faster than any of the 2.0 liter cars I mentioned and won't surpass any of them mod for mod without going to a bigger aftermarket turbo. That is part of why I think the EB is a bit of a disappointment.

From a pure performance perspective you might be right. But you fail to mention, that this is a Mustang - the sexiest one ever in fact - and those other cars range from cute at best (some of the hatches) to downright hideous at worst (WRX). Who wouldn't trade a few HP here and there for a car that is just twenty times as awesome in every other way? A few people would, I'm sure, but not me. Practicality be damned, the new Stang is just too hot to pass up.

 

[4thstang]

The 3.5 EB is a huge motor. Larger than the 5.0L, and is a premium model to the 5.0 in the trucks. I can't see too many mustang fans paying a 3k+ premium to the GT for the 3.5EB. Let alone getting that engine to fit would cost Ford a pretty penny, as it would need to be a vehicle specific 3.5.

If anything, you might see the 2.7 EB phase out the 3.7 NA, and become the stepping stone between the 2.3 and the 5.0. That or they might look into making a 5.0 EB, and investigate the cost effectiveness between the mustang and the trucks and see if there is a business model there. I highly doubt it, but it's a possibility if the 5.2 voodoo doesn't work out (which it appears it isn't).

The 3.5 is NOT a big engine. Block and heads are the same size as the 3.7.
It's it's shorter than a 5.0. Ford considers it a "Premium engine", and charges more for it, because it get's slightly better mileage than a 5.0 but and has more torque AND because it costs more to build than a 5.0.

The 2.7 would be a mid level engine, it has 320 hp and 375lb-ft of torque.
Almost exactly what the old 5.4 had.
While the 3.5 has 380 hp and 420lb-ft in the Trucks and Expy.
The Gen 2 3.5, based on the 2.7 architecture, should be a beast, apprx 420 hp and 485 lb-ft of torque. That would be a nice Mustang Engine!


Brian S.
06 Tungsten GT vert

 

[908ssp]

I hoped for the 3.5 Eco Boost last year I have known for long time that wasn't going to be in the Mustang. My friend has a tuned 3.5 Ecoboost in his truck and that thing is a monster makes almost 500 ft pounds of torque. I have been with him when he blows off 5.0s in a race from roll the traction from four wheel drive is mind blowing.

Sponsored