E85 is a 'mod' of the same ilk as Mobile 1 oil - it just adds exponentially more HP. See it as you wish, cause I won't change your opinion, and you won't change mine.
2.3L Turbo the most interesting new offering?
- Thread starter ObieFox
- Start date
E85 is a 'mod' of the same ilk as Mobile 1 oil - it just adds exponentially more HP. See it as you wish, cause I won't change your opinion, and you won't change mine.
I can respect another's opinion, I was just curious why you wouldn't consider it a modification. Just like running two "stock" cars, but one being on E85. They're both "stock" if we don't count it as a mod, but one will be faster?
Because E85 is close to 107 octane. The difference between 93 octane and 107 octane on an NA car is a couple horsepower. The difference in turbo car can be almost 3 digits of not more. They would be asking for serious problems if they did. Most gas stations who carry it don't even know if it's pure e85 or winter blend or just watered down. I could see the knocking gods taking many of these cars way to early.
E85 actually has an effective octane of about 160 in DI applications most other platforms don't even use 100% E85 when doing so to save injector headroom. The common blend with the Mazdaspeed platform was 25% E85 per tank, I took my own car down to 2 gallons per tank (16 gallon tank) before I started seeing any knock, and was still significantly above where I was knock limited on 93 alone. DI really does have some amazing perks, it just sucks when you run out.
Would make no difference if its pure E85, winter blend, or watered down other than fueling trims, you'll still be able to run right past MBT with very little E85 in the tank. The problem in this case is people get greedy and either pass MBT, or just keep adding timing and end up with blistering low end torque that leads to bent rods and windowed blocks.
most other platforms don't even use 100% E85 when doing so to save injector headroom. The common blend with the Mazdaspeed platform was 25% E85 per tank, I took my own car down to 2 gallons per tank (16 gallon tank) before I started seeing any knock, and was still significantly above where I was knock limited on 93 alone. DI really does have some amazing perks, it just sucks when you run out.Would make no difference if its pure E85, winter blend, or watered down other than fueling trims, you'll still be able to run right past MBT with very little E85 in the tank. The problem in this case is people get greedy and either pass MBT, or just keep adding timing and end up with blistering low end torque that leads to bent rods and windowed blocks.
I've read so much about mazda this, mazda that I could freaking puke. So what has become of one version of the 2015 Mustang, another ricer with fart cans? That's the direction some of you fan boys are actually pointing toward.
I view Mustang against Camaro or Challengers, not against ricers.
By the way, tell us how well your warranty works when you start pumping your 4 banger with all sorts of mods.........and yes I realize I've modded my car, but only the tune and long tubes would do any damage. I'm totally comfortable with a very non-aggressive BAMA tune and a set of BBK long tubes. Nothing anywhere close to the mods that have been mentioned. You know, the mods that would bring you toward the Mustang GT performance wise. Some have mentioned gas mileage, which is another way to give yourself a reason to buy this car, but really and truly how many of us care about gas mileage?
Again, I was OK with the thread, as nothing about the 2.3L Turbo concerns me, but when I see our beloved Mustang compared on post after post with Mazda's...........well, enough was enough.
OK fan boys, back to your 4 cylinder love.
I view Mustang against Camaro or Challengers, not against ricers.
By the way, tell us how well your warranty works when you start pumping your 4 banger with all sorts of mods.........and yes I realize I've modded my car, but only the tune and long tubes would do any damage. I'm totally comfortable with a very non-aggressive BAMA tune and a set of BBK long tubes. Nothing anywhere close to the mods that have been mentioned. You know, the mods that would bring you toward the Mustang GT performance wise. Some have mentioned gas mileage, which is another way to give yourself a reason to buy this car, but really and truly how many of us care about gas mileage?
Again, I was OK with the thread, as nothing about the 2.3L Turbo concerns me, but when I see our beloved Mustang compared on post after post with Mazda's...........well, enough was enough.
OK fan boys, back to your 4 cylinder love.
Last edited:
E85 actually has an effective octane of about 160 in DI applications
Would make no difference if its pure E85, winter blend, or watered down other than fueling trims, you'll still be able to run right past MBT with very little E85 in the tank. The problem in this case is people get greedy and either pass MBT, or just keep adding timing and end up with blistering low end torque that leads to bent rods and windowed blocks.
Sorry man I didn't realize the MS3 platform was so weak. I'm used to running stock block EVOs that put down 600+ awhp and yes we are greedy with timing so winter blend that's like e70 requires a retune. We rock full tanks and 1600cc + injectors setups with either double pumpers or more.
I'm digging the new possibilities with the ricer motor. High HP with light weight should make a road course killer. The shit is coming down the pike, and Ford needs to be ready. The days of running whatever engine you can fit into the engine bay is over. The CAFE is coming, and she is a real bitch.
One thing I can tell you about the 2.3 is that it's going to be way easier to work on than the other cars. Everything is super easy to get to and there's a ton of room to swing a wrench. I'm betting you can do a turbo-back exhaust in 30 minutes with a lift.
e85 is not a mod correct, the mod is all of the things you have to do to get e85 to work.
beers
So i distinctly remember stating in another thread the autos are always .5-.8 slower than the standards. Not only that, but the standard out trapped the auto by 5 mph. Taken from mustang6g:
We took our bone stock Ecoboost 6spd manual to the track last night for some baseline runs.
Ran the car no less then 10 times.
Had a best 60ft of a 1.91. All the other 60fts were in the 2.0-2.2 range. All of the protections the calibration has in it affect the car from run to run but it did run several back to back to back to back high 13.8's.
Our best time was [email protected] with a 2.174 60ft.
The car weighed 3580 with no driver and 1/4 tank of fuel.
There were two 15 GT's at the track as well as another Auto Ecoboost and our car was .5 quicker then the Auto Ecoboost and only .8 behind the fastest GT. All of these cars were bone stock.
Sorry its a facebook video.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=925304857497290
Here is an in car shot I took of a 13.94 run.
I think its frowned upon here to link to other forums? But it shouldn't be hard to find.
We took our bone stock Ecoboost 6spd manual to the track last night for some baseline runs.
Ran the car no less then 10 times.
Had a best 60ft of a 1.91. All the other 60fts were in the 2.0-2.2 range. All of the protections the calibration has in it affect the car from run to run but it did run several back to back to back to back high 13.8's.
Our best time was [email protected] with a 2.174 60ft.
The car weighed 3580 with no driver and 1/4 tank of fuel.
There were two 15 GT's at the track as well as another Auto Ecoboost and our car was .5 quicker then the Auto Ecoboost and only .8 behind the fastest GT. All of these cars were bone stock.
Sorry its a facebook video.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=925304857497290
Here is an in car shot I took of a 13.94 run.
I think its frowned upon here to link to other forums? But it shouldn't be hard to find.
That would be our Ecoboost car that we took to the track last night.
If anyone has any questions about its performance or the particulars on the car just let me know, I'll be happy to answer them.
JJ
I know turbo (or FI ) cars in general are real aggressive about pulling timing based on Coolant temps and boost temps. Do you guys have any data regarding what kind of temps you were seeing last night? Probably not without any sort of logging software, but i wasnt sure if the EB had any sort of readings or gauges. Thanks.
Users who are viewing this thread
