2015 Mustache Leaked before Reveal!

[OZMDD]

I'm impressed and excited about the rev matching, mode selectability and suspension revisions. Much more promising than my initial impressions.

[altiain]

The new GT will have a little more power out of the Coyote 5.0 than the current one - probably 420-425. Just a marketing bump, really.

There will be a higher horsepower, high performance, ~500 HP, naturally aspirated version, but it won't be the run of the mill GT model. Expect it to debut about a year after the new model hits showrooms.

[Walsted]

... is that 2.3 liter 4 banger basically the same one that pushes around my 1995 Ford Ranger?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was very closely related. Back in the SVO/Turbocoupe days, the turbo 2.3 had a lot of common parts with the naturally aspirated 2.3. Unfortunately, this lead to headaches for some who had engine rebuilds, as it was easy to swap the common N/A 9:1 compression head and cheaper cast pistons in while rebuilding the 8:1 compression w/forged pistons turbo 2.3, resulting in a hole in a piston in short order. On the other hand, folks dropped the SVO/TurboCoupe engines into same-era Rangers with no real major issues (except for the climate control stuff and turbo trying to occupy the same space). If I recall correctly, the N/A EFI 2.3 in the mid 1980s was close to or a little over 100hp, the 88 Turbocoupe 5sp was at 190hp, and the 86 SVO was at 205hp. Some folks used various methods to bump the 15psi boost limit to higher numbers, generating more horsepower, with little ill effect if the block was stock and boost not raised above the point of efficiency. Obviously the turbo (and modifications to accomodate the turbo) made a big difference in the 2.3 performance, making the engine swap a significant improvement.

On a different note, I'm curious to see if they are going to use forged pistons in the 2.3 Ecoboost engine, how boost and fuel will be regulated, and other turbo-performance concerns. Will the EEC shut off fuel and/or spark if it detects an overboost, or will it compensate by retarding spark and adding fuel to avoid pre-ignition and/or a too-lean condition? Is the turbo so small that factory settings put it near its maximum efficiency, already? Does it use common bolt patterns, so a bigger turbo can be easily substituted? For me, this could be a great car to pick up used several years from now when the novelty has worn off if done right. On the other hand, if it is done with cast pistons and EEC limits that prevent horsepower increases, it would probably not be worth it for my purposes.

[OZMDD]

Good read. I'd expect it to be more related to the zetec motor along the lines of the MS3, but that's a total guess.

[EricJ]

MS3 has a Duratec, like the current Focus, not a Zetec. I had a Focus with a Zetec before the MS3. (Doesn't the NC have a Duratec too?)

[OZMDD]

Yep, I said the wrong tec. Duratec... Sounds like an Asian redneck name.

[Walsted]

Good read...

Thanks.

I googled a few things to answer my questions, and now I am disappointed. Forged crank and rods according to graphics, but pistons are described as lightweight with oil cooling, which I will assume means cast. The Solstace/Sky turbo got 18psi (epending upont the EEC's mood) with this set-up, and the heat/oil cycle may end up forging the piston from the back side, (I don't know, someone more knowledgeable would have to say if this was really possible,) but I would rather forego the weight savings and associated penalties to be able to safely run higher boost.

The stock turbo is engine specific for the 2.0 (and other) EcoBoost engines, and I believe many, if not all, are from Borg-Warner. So, if the 2.3 follows the same trend, custom manifolds and piping would be required to run a Garrett turbo.

I don't know if this helps anyone other than myself, but at this point, I am no longer longing for the 2015 Mustang 2.3.