2.3L Turbo the most interesting new offering?

[Steve@Tasca]

All new technology is expensive, I can remember when a CD player was $500 and now you virtually get them free in a box of cereal.

As DI becomes more common and more aftermarket companies start developing upgrade parts the prices will come down, that's how it works.

-Steve

 

[draxxus131]

^^I concur!

 

[draxxus131]

I personally would not want the 6r80 in the new Mustang, considering the automatic transmission that is going in with paddle shifters and suppose to be a hell of a lot smoother.

 

[draxxus131]

Also who is to say that the person talking about his 400+ HP mazda speed 3 didn't buy used parts!? That is a startling revelation right there for that argument.

 

[heatsoaked12]

If the ecoboosted mustang drives anything like my brother in laws acura rdx it should be a very nice daily driver.

 

[peteypab2133]

Yep because no other 4 bangers are making 600 hp.. tell that to the sti, evo, gti, civic etc etc owners with 2.0 or smaller motors some make 1100 or 1200 hp. Just wait till AMS or Buschur get one. It will literally be weeks before it makes atleast 500 rwhp (pending tuning software is available)

Funny how ford racing already with a tune and tires are running low 12s and with bolt on parts pulling the front wheels off the ground. The car is not even for sale yet. This car is going to have a much bigger following than many people think.

I quoted this because I was laughed at saying the car could easily make 400-500 rwhp


Buy July of next year (2015) there will MULTIPLE 2.3l mustangs running 10s with a select few running 9's that's just year one..

Quote me on it.

 

[SID297]

All new technology is expensive, I can remember when a CD player was $500 and now you virtually get them free in a box of cereal.

As DI becomes more common and more aftermarket companies start developing upgrade parts the prices will come down, that's how it works.

-Steve

I look for CD players to all but disappear from Fords in the next 5 years.

 

[Bob Cosby]

Funny how ford racing already with a tune and tires are running low 12s and with bolt on parts pulling the front wheels off the ground. The car is not even for sale yet. This car is going to have a much bigger following than many people think.

I generally agree with your post. However, 12.56 is not low 12's. Solid mid 12's.

Just sayin.

 

[Steve@Tasca]

I generally agree with your post. However, 12.56 is not low 12's. Solid mid 12's.

Just sayin.

Regardless, it's a basically stock 2.3 car running 12s. I'd call that impressive. Granted it had uprated rear subframe bushings and stronger axles but the engine, turbo and intercooler were stone stock, just a tune.

-Steve

 

[GTSpartan]

Regardless, it's a basically stock 2.3 car running 12s. I'd call that impressive. Granted it had uprated rear subframe bushings and stronger axles but the engine, turbo and intercooler were stone stock, just a tune.

-Steve

I think someone already pointed it out, but one of the fog lights (on the intake side) was missing, so there may have been more than just a tune job.

Weren't the gears changed to 3.73's also?

Still a very respectable time.

 

[Steve@Tasca]

I think someone already pointed it out, but one of the fog lights (on the intake side) was missing, so there may have been more than just a tune job.

Weren't the gears changed to 3.73's also?

Still a very respectable time.

Missing headlight is a common enough thing at the strip to get cooler air to the inlet and 3.73s are an optional ratio in the '15 Mustang.

Should be fun to see what happens when people really start pushing these things.

-Steve

 

[Voltwings]

On e85 with supporting mods that car will trap high teens stock turbo, bet money.

 

[Bob Cosby]

Regardless, it's a basically stock 2.3 car running 12s. I'd call that impressive. Granted it had uprated rear subframe bushings and stronger axles but the engine, turbo and intercooler were stone stock, just a tune.

-Steve

I agree.

On e85 with supporting mods that car will trap high teens stock turbo, bet money.

How do we know what fuel the car in question was running? Could it have been on E85?

 

[Swoope]

I agree.



How do we know what fuel the car in question was running? Could it have been on E85?

you really dont, but do you think ford would waste the time to do the mods, produce the video for a car that does not run e85?

that would be really stupid..

beers

 

[Voltwings]

You're right, we dont. Ford was very up front about the mods to each car in Editor Turner's article on the front page and E85 was not listed. However, seeing as how thats a Ford Racing tune, designed to be an off the shelf, maintains warranty, plug and play option, i dont think they would offer it with E85. Keep in mind, they're testing Ford Racing parts to offer and sell, not simply putting up numbers.

 

[SID297]

You're right, we dont. Ford was very up front about the mods to each car in Editor Turner's article on the front page and E85 was not listed. However, seeing as how thats a Ford Racing tune, designed to be an off the shelf, maintains warranty, plug and play option, i dont think they would offer it with E85. Keep in mind, they're testing Ford Racing parts to offer and sell, not simply putting up numbers.

All true.

 

[Steve@Tasca]

How do we know what fuel the car in question was running? Could it have been on E85?

Because FRPP produced that video to promote their own products, not the Mustang itself so the calibration used would be a version of what they're going to be selling to the consumer and there's no way FRPP is selling E85 tunes.

-Steve

 

[Bob Cosby]

Ok, if y'all say so. But y'all are still assuming.

BTW.....I don't consider using E85 a "mod".

 

[Voltwings]

... its damn near the single biggest bang for the buck "mod" you can do on an FI car, How can you not? The car needs to be adjusted, and or ... modified... in order to run it. I'm sure you'll explain your reasoning, but I'm having a hard time seeing the logic there.

 

[Steve@Tasca]

I've been dealing with Ford Racing for about ten years now and if there's one thing I can say pretty much without question is that they do not pad their numbers. Quite the opposite in many cases, I've seen them quote lower numbers just to be on the safe side.

If they advertise a power gain on a given product you better believe its going to provide at least that number if not more. It's things like this that make selling their products such a pleasure, they do it right.

-Steve