An Argument FOR the I4 Mustang

"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
09/24/2014 at 15:08 • Filed to: None

In response to K-Roll's anti-turbo/anti-I4-Mustang posts (to which I am certainly seeing some merit, the market is being flooded with turbo cars these days, but I always enjoy playing devils advocate). Let me put forth the following challenge, get both a V6 Mustang and a 2.3 Liter I4 Turbo Mustang to 380 horsepower. A nice increase over stock right? With which model will you get there with the least amount spent?

MSRP V6: 23,600
MSRP I4: 25,170

Difference $1,570

V6, what's a supercharger kit cost? Because that's the only way we are getting to where we are headed. Let's say $5,000. Reasonable? Please tell me if it isn't. It's probably more if you are having it installed, correct?

I4, tune + downpipes (+ meth injection), that is $600 + $400 (+ $1000). A tune + downpipes will probably get us to our goal, but if not let's add meth injection and we'll surely be there. So $1000 to $2000.

Or a $3000 to $4000 difference (maybe more). Versus a $1,570 cost of entry at MSRP.

So, what I am wanting to say here, it takes a whole lot less money to dial up the power on an Ecoboost Mustang, this has GOT to be attractive to people that aren't willing to go all-in with a supercharger, but would like their car to have more power than stock.

Another way to look at this. On the Ecoboost you can do this for less than the price of a GT, for the V6 it's equal to or more than the cost of a GT, but in the V6's favor, you do have thing beginnings of a lighter car that could eclipse the GT in power.

Am I in favor of axing the V6? NO. But there is a whole lot of merit to the 4 cylinder turbo route. But Ford sure has added an attractive 3rd option, in my opinion. What would I choose? I have no idea, what will each of these 3 options cost my in 2020 with 40,000+ miles on them?

DISCUSSION (44)

crowmolly > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:13

I guess I'm just stirring the pot but I'd like to see power curves, not peak numbers.

Rainbow > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:13

My first car was a 4-cylinder Mustang, and it was great. Not much power, but a great amount of torque. (It was automatic, and even uphill it could idle itself into second gear if I let it) Plus it got something like ~25mpg, and that was for an '88. So this one should be in the 30s, easily.

In other words, it's more than enough car to love, only it will be cheaper to own. 10/10.

HammerheadFistpunch > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:14

380 hp from a 2.3 liter I4? doable, but a mildly charged v6 is going to be more streetable, reliable and return better mileage (probably)

T5Killer > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:15

Being someone who has daily driven a v8 mustang for 10+ years and a owner for almost 16 years I really really want a ecoboost '15.

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:17

Turboed I6 and we're talkin'. Let's see Ford come out with a modern 2JZ! lol

HammerheadFistpunch > crowmolly
09/24/2014 at 15:18

being an ecoboost it will have variable vale timing, direct injection and very good boost management, I'll bet the curves are pretty flat.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
09/24/2014 at 15:19

That would be AWESOME. Ford needs an I6 in its lineup.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:20

You know which one I want. V6, I don't care if it's NA or some form of forced induction, I just want a 6 cylinder Mustang.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > crowmolly
09/24/2014 at 15:20

As Hammerhead mentions, a V6 could be more streetable, responsive. But I can't be sure of it, it does make sense though. In other words, the power curve may be in the V6's favor.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > HammerheadFistpunch
09/24/2014 at 15:22

It certainly could be, it depends who you are whether that's worth the extra cash and headache of installing a supercharger. I recall reading that the EcoBoost was harder to get back on the power coming out of a turn.

YSI-what can brown do for you > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:22

Why is everyone anti turbo? Turbos are amazing. Where else can you get 1400hp out of a 1.5l inline 4. Turbo. Plus like you said, really easy power. Ask all the "stage 2" Subarus out there how they got all that extra power for a thousand bucks.

Oh and NA engines can't do this. . .

Oh what's that, NA engines cant have external wastegates?

I am a big NA man, but turbos are AMAZING

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > K-Roll-PorscheTamer
09/24/2014 at 15:23

Certainly, I am glad it's still an option. I've also always liked the idea of a supercharged V6. What I'd really like in is an I6 though!

T5Killer > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
09/24/2014 at 15:24

Ford Barra engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Barr…

Kinja'd!!!

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > YSI-what can brown do for you
09/24/2014 at 15:24

Turbo's certainly are great, but I do hope we retain some of our N/A V8's and V6's.

I personally drive a Taurus SHO, so I'm very familiar with how awesome turbo's are.

HammerheadFistpunch > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:25

Any turbo motor is, but its just a learning curve. I mean, JGTC cars in the 90's were doing well over 500 hp from turbo 2 liters and getting on the power just fine. Its not that that is an issue, I just think that nearly 2:1 hp/liter ratios in a car for the street is going to require some sacrifices that a larger engine wouldn't. Gas reqs, heat management, Inconsistent throttle response...etc.

BigBlock440 > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:25

I kinda think 80 extra hp could be done without a supercharger. An intake and exhaust, different cam profile, different tune, and you'll be there. Probably. And at a bit less than the 5K quoted for a supercharger. Possible head work (don't know how popular or advantageous it is with newer vehicles), maybe a higher compression ratio, shouldn't be too expensive.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:26

I think we'd all like a straight-6 Mustang again.

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > T5Killer
09/24/2014 at 15:30

Why can't we have nice things?! #ThanksObama

YSI-what can brown do for you > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:31

I mean of course. An all turbo world would be just as boring as an all NA world. Variety is what keeps it interesting! I think V6s sound great and can be made into great NA engines, but apparently the mass population doesn't think so. As long as we have some NA engines in one form or another I am happy.

I too have never driven a turbo car, I need to experience it one day!

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > HammerheadFistpunch
09/24/2014 at 15:40

Yes, and not to mention longevity. I would agree that approaching 2:1 on a street engine would be quite crazy.

380/2.3=165 hp/liter, that's quite something. Maybe I'm a bit on the high side there, haha. thats 1.65:1 hp/liter. I'm pretty sure F-ST's are getting around the 1.5:1 mark though.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > BigBlock440
09/24/2014 at 15:41

Perhaps it could be done, I imagine that's at the outer limit of what can be done N/A though. I'm really not sure how these engines respond to N/A tuning.

Sweet Trav > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:44

Honestly, in a RWD street car car, I'm OK a with a little turbo lag. As someone who drives a car that has trouble putting the grunt down. granted its a 3400lb V8 powered street car with 255 Drag radials, even then the concept of a top end turbo motor is appealing. lighter launch is better for the rear end, transmission and suspension. Not to mention the whole sliding damnnear-uncontrollably around Michigan lefts with slightest dab of throttle when its mildly moist out, while fun can be a tad bit dangerous.

I welcome our turbocharged overlords.

T5Killer > Rainbow
09/24/2014 at 15:45

I really want to find a clean hatch or 'vert 4cyl fox as a daily driver.

T5Killer > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:47

High altitude folks like my self will love the turbo vs NA V6. I cannot wait to see what numbers they put out here @ 5k+ feet above sea level.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > YSI-what can brown do for you
09/24/2014 at 15:57

"I too have never..." Too? I never said I didn't drive one, haha.

BigBlock440 > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 15:58

I'm not sure how much is left on the table for the aftermarket. Granted, tuners don't have to worry about emissions, but I'm sure it's not as easy as it was getting that extra 80 out of the 300 horse GT.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Sweet Trav
09/24/2014 at 15:58

Sure. And I'm sure you can get a feel for when that turbo kicks in when you get on the throttle. It's all about getting a feel about how your car handles and at which RPM's you need to be.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > T5Killer
09/24/2014 at 15:59

Another reason the I4 Turbo is a great addition to the Mustang lineup.

MachineReplica > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 16:00

The SVO (I refuse to call it the Mustang Eco Boost) should be a sweet autocross car with the optional track pack, recaro seats, and some good tires and light wheels. Especially if it makes power to redline and doesn't dump all of the torque right in the bottom like a damn diesel. I have high hopes, but so far the reviews aren't helping. I doubt I'll ever buy one, but I still want it to be good.

That being said, the Duratec 37 is a great motor and I enjoyed driving my friend's 2013 Mustang V6 with the sport package (read limited slip rear end) and manual.

YSI-what can brown do for you > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 16:00

Don't ask me why, but I read that as "I drive a SHO so I'm unfamiliar with how awesome they are." I should probably learn how to read before I learn how to turbo.

Is this a newer or older SHO, cause I thought the older ones were NA V6s.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > BigBlock440
09/24/2014 at 16:01

I'm judging this based on what I'm able to get out of my 3.5 Ecoboost and what I've read people are getting out of their Focus ST's.

I think to get that 80 you will need the meth injection which is a little more involved than a simple tune+downpipe, but still much easier than installing a supercharger.

Sweet Trav > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 16:01

Moreso i was speaking to the way my car handles in the wet, with on demand low end torque

BigBlock440 > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 16:21

I'm talking about doing it without the supercharger though. The old 300hp V8 in the Mustang GT was easy enough to get an extra 80 hp without forced induction. I don't know if the new ones leave enough on the table for that. With forced induction, just turn up the boost (basically). As long as it's strong enough, you're good.

PilotMan > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 16:32

I drive two vehicles that roughly have the same 0-60 time, a 395 Horsepower Hemi Ram and a 160 Horsepower Abarth. They will both happily spin their drive tires. One is big the other tiny, but both handle remarkably well for what they are.

Without considering fuel mileage, the power of the Hemi makes the Ram a more enjoyable ride. The torque is always there and the big 20" wheels and tires can be made to scramble for traction. The Fiat is fun to park and to cut through traffic with. It's also a joy to throw around, especially in the corners with mild lowering springs. The 1.4L turbo is an angry little motor with tons of great turbo and exhaust noise that fits in a tiny car, but there is the turbo lag and a wide spectrum of actual performance based on how well the intercoolers are working. The Ram's V8 just has so much more power instantly available all the time.

The Ram gets about half the mileage of the Fiat which means I'm usually driving the Abarth. But since the Abarth is a turbo car it must be driven very gingerly to pull off 40 MPG on the highway, just barely above the speed limit while staying out of boost. If the mileage between the two was closer like 25 and 30 MPG, I would be driving the Ram every day.

Lesson to be learned from my rambling, go with the 5.0 and you won't ever regret it. The mileage difference is not worth the power sacrifice, especially since that little turbo motor is going to be working awfully hard to pull that big fat 'stang around. Driving the Mustang fast, the mileage between the two motors will be damn similar. Get a base GT and do the track pack mods later on.

PilotMan > Rainbow
09/24/2014 at 16:38

Your Mustang was about half the size of the new one, pretty much a rwd Focus really.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > PilotMan
09/24/2014 at 16:51

I think after test drives I'd very much inclined to go for the V8.

Just arguing in favor of an I4 Turbo option because it's fun, haha.

PilotMan > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 17:36

Turbos are awesome on sporty trims of NA models like Fiesta/Focus STs, Abarths, GTIs, WRXs, etc... The boost comes on and you transition to warp speed, it's awesome.

I don't think turbos are as awesome as displacement substitutes for the sake of mileage. Big car + small turbo = positive boost pressure driving around at boring speeds. Lots of whoosh, pop noises staying with traffic. Turbo boost becomes required just to keep up with traffic. It's no longer fun, just kind of annoying with a stick since you need to blip the throttle before clutch releases at starts to keep the turbo spooled and the car with a non-lag take off. That doesn't sound all that fun for me.

Although, the 1 liter turbo Fiesta is quite fun to drive around at max boost all the time. The three banger is so dang small and running so much boost all the time that it feels like a healthy NA 1.8L. The power is 123 hp at 6,000 rpm/125 lb-ft at 1,400-4,500 rpm but it feels like a bit more in such a small car.

Who knows, maybe the Mustang with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost , with 310 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque on tap (which does have a higher ratio of hp/displacement) will be just as enjoyable to drive as a daily driver.

pfftballer > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 19:55

And this is why naturally aspirated cars are better "driver's" cars. I've owned my share of both turbo and NA and they each have their merits, but turbo lag is a thing. Waiting on that boost to build is almost like waiting on your automatic trans to downshift. When it hits it hits hard but by then you're already aggravated for being made to wait for it.

Axial > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 21:48

Boost all you want, and then your fuel economy tanks extra hard, your streetability goes to hell, ultimately finished out with your bottom end detonating. Whooo, just like a ragged-out, over-boosted Civic!

Really, that's why displacement wins every time. Every time. The potential is greater. Even if you did a full build on the I4, doing the same on the V6 nets you better results while the difference in price gets smaller the more complicated the job gets.

The I4 is great only because it's cheap and for no other reason. That's not a bad thing, just indefensible against a V6 from a power performance standpoint (and a V6 is indefensible against a V8, etc.).

I do love me some turbos, though.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > PilotMan
09/24/2014 at 22:00

I really don't think you'll know till you get to drive it. I really enjoy my Taurus SHO with TT3.5 as a daily driver.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Axial
09/24/2014 at 22:02

Ecoboost engines have been responding very well to increased boost. They also respond very well to being tuned, both in mpg's and power.

But I won't deny the potential with an N/A is greater, but I'm arguing here for the 80hp gain and under. Its more easily achieved with the 2.3, it can also be reliably achieved.

Axial > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/24/2014 at 22:20

I suppose. I guess I always consider the "big picture" though. It's not just cars, either. I refused to buy into the then-new LGA 1155 socket when I built a new PC because I knew it was an inherently gimped platform and the X79 had much more potential.

I mean, $8000 isn't exactly nothing, but you are already spending $25,000 on a new car. I think I'd rather work a little longer to save and get the, ahem, real version of the Mustang.

Note, the above is not applicable to Europe. Europe has other incentives for the EcoBoost I4.

I hoon, therefore I am > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
09/25/2014 at 15:24

If you can't make 380 hp on corn you're doing something wrong. It would likely take downpipes and an intake/intercooler, but it wouldn't be terribly difficult with a good E85 tune.

V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me! > BigBlock440
09/29/2014 at 16:34

On the V6? Under 5K for 80 HP from N/A? Doubtful. It can be done, but it's gonna need a good amount head work. Cams on the 3.7 go for a MINIMUM of about $1,000 for the cams alone. Super Six Motorsports charges over $2K to port heads that are supplied by the owner. Factor in the rest of the supporting cast and you're close to 5K. That's without labor.