Every Ecoboost Mustang Sold Will Kill Someone's Inner Hoon

"PardonMyFlemish16" (TheCoolKid) 05/20/2014 at 19:59 • Filed to: None

14

100

You know, for a long time, the V8 in the Mustang GT kind of sucked. And I'm not talking about the lump in the Mustang II. A !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! would have trouble getting away from a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! despite !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

The modular 4.6 hit its stride with the New Edge Mustang of '99, turning the GT from a low 15 second car to a high 13 second car overnight and putting the Mustang GT back into the dog fight with the LS1 F bodies. It wouldn't be for another decade before Ford gave the chassis the same kind of love though.

With that chassis love in the 2011 Mustang also came another huge step forward in the powertrain with the 5.0 Coyote. We all know the story, but I wanted to tell it again to put this all in context. The 5.0 Coyote is a world class engine. Full stop. Yes, it's no LSx and it probably won't fit under the hood of your NA1 Miata. But it has all the brawn of a MRRRCN V8 with the high tech credibility and refinement of something out of Europe. This engine was part of the package !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! So this engine is the real deal and not only a great engine, but an IMPORTANT engine too.

The 3.7 V6 was a huge step forward as well that shouldn't be dismissed- 50% more power and ~15% better gas mileage than that awful Cologne 4.0, with performance basically on the level of the old Modular 4.6 with significantly better gas mileage as well.

So why, in the love of all things HOLY, HOONISH, OPPO, and MRRRRRCN, would anyone go for the 2.3T over these phenomenal all motor lumps? Some of the rationalizations I've heard.... blegh.

It Will Get Good Gas Mileage!

That's highly debatable. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! doesn't really blow away its V6 competition, and the Mustang V6 gets great gas mileage for a car of its size and performance.

I Can Chip It!

Maybe so, maybe no. But even if so, stock 5.0s are putting down about 380 RWHP. That's a tall order from what will probably be ~280 RWHP from these. Bolt on 5.0s are putting down damn near 450 RWHP. Are you really going to push your brand new Mustang Ecoboost to that limit? Ford won't replace that under warranty, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! Yea, I know that's the 2.0, but I doubt the 2.3 will be any cheaper. Plus nothing is free- big power out of small turbo engines= laggy, peaky powerbands. Here's what a 450WHP 2.5L 4 powerband looks like:

And here is 5.0L making slightly less power....

Notice how the 5.0 makes 2x the torque at 2500 RPM? Notice how you don't need to spool up that 5.0 to get it going? When did stuff like powerbands and throttle response stop mattering?

Not to mention, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and buying a Mustang with a fear of gas prices and concerns for the economy is letting the god damn terrorists win. Mustangs are the voice of America. Mustangs are a cultural institution. Mustangs are the rejection of all that pansy ass NCAP California 91 grade octane hippy Prius bullshit. The Coyote V8 is also an 8 cannon salute to the awesomeness of the big, hairy chested, naturally aspirated motor. Imagine if the 458 replacement or the x63 AMG replacements were to have their V8s replaced with a turbo 4. You feel that pit in your stomach? That's what someone's inner hoon will feel a thousand times over when you sign the dotted line for that pansy ass Ecoboost.

I will conclude with this. Remember how when the Genesis coupe came out, people high and low said "you know what would make this awesome? The big V8!"? Imagine if it came with the V8 instead of the 2.0T. Do you think anybody would have said "you know what, this V8 fucking rips, but man I sure would rather have a 2.0T four banger with no exhaust note, a peaky ass powerband, and half the horsepower?"

Do the right thing. BE A MAN. Do NOT buy the Ecoboost Mustang!

McChiken116 - Patrick H. > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 20:03

12

the point is to get the ecoboost over the V6, the GT is still king

Garrett Davis > McChiken116 - Patrick H. 05/20/2014 at 20:12

0

This.

Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 20:13

4

How do 4 cylinders have no exhaust tone?

I'll use my car as an example, yes its a lot of crackle, and the audio sucks because of camera phone.

But god damn this car sounds agressive when in person.

In regards to the power band being small and peaky. I posted a dyno graph of my car, and will post it again.

And that was an engine ago, and on a shitty tune, on my current tune I make 400ft lbs at around 2500rpm and 350whp or so at 6800rpm. I don't know exact numbers since I never got a sheet from the tuner or remembered the numbers.

But, it's not peaky, it spools, picks up and goes til the rev limiter. While yeah its no V8, it is still a potent 2.0 Liter Direct injection Turbo engine.

And note, all my internals are "stock" from GM, the way they built the engine, I upgraded my valve springs so I can rev a bit higher, but other than that its stock.

So it isn't like I've dumped tons of money internal to the engine,.

Once I get reflashed along with a new cam I plan to make even more power....

Also I average 35mpg on this tune....if I keep my foot out of it, and I only make 21psi of boost at the moment, for a time I was making 35psi of boost and the numbers were ridiculous, I would spin tires on the dyno and my clutch eventually quit.

Don't doubt the 4 cylinder.

If I had my option, I would get the Ecoboost 4 cylinder, jsut to demonstrate the power it can make.

Manuél Ferrari > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 20:13

1

OkCars- 22k Crossroads > McChiken116 - Patrick H. 05/20/2014 at 20:17

6

Ecoboost is for suckers. V6 Is better, and with some bolt ons and shit you still have a reliable v6, turbos just makes everything more complex

dogisbadob > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 20:19

2

Korean muscle baby! No really though, the V8 should be an option on the Genesis, but the current turbo-4 and V6 should stay also. Three engine options instead of just two.

The 84 SVO is a cool car with its turbo-4.

Positioning the "eco" boost above the V6 is probably a mistake though, as the current V6 set the bar rather high, as you said. They should've just adapted the Focus ST's 2.0T for RWD use, as its base engine. Then the current V6 but maybe with slightly more hp and/or better mpg. And of course the V8 on top.

But really, I wish the Mustang was smaller, like the FRS/BRZ. Return of the 70s Capri! Or maybe they can still make a smaller Capri to slot below the Mustang. A small RWD car with an American nameplate would be awesome. Even better if they could get the starting price below 20k, which may be possible if they use the Focus's 2.0 NA engine as the base engine, then maybe a higher-output NA version with 200+ hp to compete with the existing FRS/BRZ, and finally the ST model with the same engine as the Focus ST. That top model would cost slightly more than the base Mustang.

webmonkees > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 20:24

1

Apparently not a Hoon.

It's the natural way of Mustang. The desirable top speed model, and the base models that look good, not go fast.

If anything, more natural Hoon would emerge as the owner inevitably gets matched up against other cars. What will they do about it?

Besides, mid-range and base models provide donor chassis for the top speeder's old motors if they come out intact. ( Either one.)

Jayhawk Jake > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 20:24

2

Ecoboost over V8? It's cheaper.

Ecoboost over V6 seems like a no brainer. Why would I want a dated V6 engine that will probably make less power and torque while burning more fuel than a new turbo four?

I really don't get the hate. It's not like the Mustang is some holy entity of the car world: it's a kinda cool looking car that mostly ends up as 'exciting' rentals and daddy's girl's status symbol in anything short of GT form. Who cares whether someone buys one with a turbo four or a V6, either way it's probably going to be doomed to a life of driving slowly to the mall with its automatic transmission never allowing the engine to rev more than 2500 RPM

Jayhawk Jake > OkCars- 22k Crossroads 05/20/2014 at 20:27

3

That's such an outdated blanket statemnt.

Turbos don't make everything more complex. It's turbine that sits on the exhaust manifold. That's it. Modern turbos have been plenty reliable as far as I can tell, and there's no reason to expect it to be any less reliable than the V6.

Given how popular the Mustang is and will continue to be, the aftermarket for the turbo is going to be insane. I give it 3 months before people are getting 50-100hp more out of the turbo with a tune and some bolt ons.

Axial > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 20:34

8

As a rule, I dislike the V6 engine configuration. It's prone to vibration, it's down on torque versus a V8, and it has no advantage over a properly set-up turbo-4. They don't generally sound good, either; none of the major V6 engines (Nissan, Ford, GM, Chrysler) have a good note. About the only thing the V6 has going for it over the turbocharged 4-pot are simplicity and increased potential.

Having established the above:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Droning, whining, straining pieces of shit. Even with decent displacement (>2.0 L) and a proper exhaust, they sound irritating rather than enthralling. Too much space between each firing. In addition, if you are peddling a turbocharged 4-pot that displaces two litres, double fuck you. I am sick to death of that whored-out configuration.

OkCars- 22k Crossroads > Jayhawk Jake 05/20/2014 at 20:46

2

Tell that to the turbo timer technology. The good thing for turbo fans is that they can now have a mustang.

PS9 > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 20:51

5

Do the right thing. BE A MAN. Do NOT buy the Ecoboost Mustang!

I find this statement to be quite ironic, given the level on insecurity on display in this article.

f86sabre > Jayhawk Jake 05/20/2014 at 20:52

0

I agree. Hating on them for tying to make the car appeal to a wider world, seems silly. Plus:

coqui70 > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 20:57

1

There's a perfectly good fix for all of this - Ford needs to make a smaller footprint rwd car. Call it the Falcon, give it the 2.3 turbo and then shove the new 2.7 V6 Turbo in the Mustang as the base engine. Ditch the 3.7 v6 aspro and sell non-GT 5.0s for the weekend racer crowd (5.0 LX baby!).

PardonMyFlemish16 > Jayhawk Jake 05/20/2014 at 21:09

7

It's turbine that sits on the exhaust manifold. That's it.

No. It's another circulation line for oil and coolant. It's another set of controls and sensors. It's the added piping and engine stresses. It's an intercooler. Etc. etc.

And that 50-100HP is just the tip of the 5.0, without warranty protection, and probably for not much less money if at all. Frankly, if you care about performance at all, there is no reason to get anything less than the GT.

cluelessk > OkCars- 22k Crossroads 05/20/2014 at 21:16

0

You're so wrong. Turbo 4's are usually way easier to build power.

With a GM reflash and upgraded sensors my turbo Cobalt can gain about 50whp with more torque. Even more with a custom tune. My car builds max torque at 2200rpms.

Guys are pushing 500whp with 26psi on stock bottom ends. I really doubt a v6 could do that as easily.

I'm sure the new ecoboost will do even better. Also lag on a modern turbo engine is almost nothing. I'm sure you're talking about threshold.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT 05/20/2014 at 21:17

4

Your engine is about where the Ecoboost will be stock on an HP/L basis, it clearly has some kind of boost/torque flattening algorithm, and it has a 1500 RPM powerband. With a tune and bolt ons. You needed 35 psi.... that is nearly 4x atmospheric pressure... to make 350WHP, which when you factor in displacement is about what the 2.3 would need to get to a stock 5.0's numbers. And your car sounds OK... for a turbo 4, which generally don't sound good. It doesn't come close to the sound of a V8 (or frankly even a bolt on V6 TBH).

If I had my option I would go with the Mustang that puts the biggest smile on my face. That would definitely be the GT.

PardonMyFlemish16 > dogisbadob 05/20/2014 at 21:18

2

Agreed. I don't think the 2.3 is awful but it definitely makes more sense as the base, "economy" option.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Axial 05/20/2014 at 21:21

2

IDK.... I have a 350Z now, and inside the car the engine note is pretty good. I know this is blasphemous but I also prefer the sound of a Porsche F6 to pretty much all production V8s.

That said I am also very anti the 2.0T as a performance mill. I wouldn't mind one in a boring daily driver, but they sound horrible uncorked and don't really save any weight or cost over a V6.

Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 21:22

2

I made 350whp at 20psi or so.

With 35psi I made far more than that, it was never dyno'd on that tune, it was just a "Haha lets try this for a couple days" tune.

And drive whatever puts a smile on your face, that's what matters. I feel like the odd one out with wanting the Ecoboost.

Squid > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 21:28

0

You know, I was thinking about this earlier. The main benefit that the ecoboost 'stang can provide would be weight reduction and balance. Granted I'd still rather have the GT with the big five ohhhhh but the lil 2.3 might be better off in the balance department and once people start fucking with them they may end up the better track car purely out of weight and balance. This is all speculation on my end, but really the turbo 2.3 isn't for us Americans, it is for those Europeans that don't like American V8's. . .

AthomSfere > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 21:30

0

I think the 350Z has one of the best factory exhaust notes in a car that costs less than a typical house in rural Idaho...

Jedidiah > Axial 05/20/2014 at 21:32

2

I agree with everything you just said. This is the best post I have read in a while. I don't care how much power your 4-pot puts down—It's still a piece of shit. Sounds like shit and it isn't going to have a good powerband unless it is laden with complicated, waste-of-space parts. The only people who say they like 4-cylinders are the ones who continually try justify the cheap econobox that their parents bought them several years ago. I have NEVER driven an enjoyable 4 cylinder car. V6s are tolerable, but I wouldn't want to be stuck with one for an extended period of time.

Axial > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 21:36

0

My two-point-slow 2002 Jetta also sounded great inside, but damn it was awful outside. I have yet to hear a V6 Z-car that sounds good from the outside. Even NISMO. I see several every day, in person, up close. It's just...raspy? Raucous? I dunno, it's just a cacophony of noise and not very focused.

I'm not hating on the Z, I think they are really fun and I used to drool over them. They just don't sound pretty to me.

As for the 2.0T...it's just boring as hell. They are never really pushed to their potential. They are also being used by the most conservative of automakers. FIAT is stuffing a rev-happy turbocharged 1.75 L four cylinder into the 4C. That's fun. They put a great-sounding 1.6 T in the Abarth...also fun. The 2.0 T everybody else has? Not particularly revvy, not really torquey, not powerful, not good sounding. Just...blasé.

Axial > Jedidiah 05/20/2014 at 21:46

0

This is Jalopnik, though. Hooning pieces of shit is at the heart of what it's about. I mean, the proper performance cars get their due respect but the general sentiment seems to be that the more obscure/worse it is, the better. People like me (us?), who like our performance cars to look like what they are and be designed from the ground up to be what they are, fall into the minority.

That said, I am never, ever getting another four-cylinder car. Never. I will convert my V8 to run alcohol first.

cluelessk > Axial 05/20/2014 at 21:55

0

Dunno if you're trolling.

Ya cause this sounds terrible......

My car doesn't drone or rasp, has incredible overrun and shoots some nice flames during shifts.

OkCars- 22k Crossroads > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 21:59

0

Thats right.

OkCars- 22k Crossroads > cluelessk 05/20/2014 at 22:03

3

what is wrong about it? the v6 will hold on for some 30 years of beating if you just keep making your oil changes, i doubt that with your precious turbos.

cluelessk > OkCars- 22k Crossroads 05/20/2014 at 22:06

0

It's all about maintenance. Anything dies when it's abused and not taken care of.

Don't be scared of the future. I know technology can be scary.

Axial > cluelessk 05/20/2014 at 22:09

2

I've heard many cars that sound like the above. They are not pleasant at idle, creating this pervasive and resonant noise that creates headaches after prolonged exposure. It's not necessarily loud in decibels, just...penetrating. I hate it. You are also fixating on the overrun while ignoring the hollow, metallic timbre. When you get on it you can compare the sound of the above to a person trying his best to roar like a lion. A V8 is an actual lion.

I rest my case.

P.S. The turbo is incredibly audible in the first video. That's raspy. Not pleasant or awesome like supercharger chains and gearing. Wastegates dumping also ruin the experience, though I didn't hear any of that in your clips.

OkCars- 22k Crossroads > Axial 05/20/2014 at 22:12

1

Simplicity, thats the advantage, the V6 can handle the beating and if you just make your proper oil changes it will hold for 20+ years, while the turbo, will need more maintenance and could likely cause problems over the years.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 22:14

1

The 2.3T is a whole different kind of car than a 5.0 V8. It'll be nimbler and it will be possible to approach the stock V8 power levels with it. It would be fun to see what you can push a 2.3T to produce, power-wise. There will be a huge aftermarket for it. It will be fun to see them go head to head with a V8, to see how the handling characteristics compare on some tighter and/or more technical courses.

No, it won't sound like it, no, it won't have the same performance potential. But the Mustang does have a history of 4 cylinders and it allows us to keep our V8's because Ford can tout better fleet economy.

Axial > OkCars- 22k Crossroads 05/20/2014 at 22:15

2

I never meant that wasn't a fair advantage, just that it's only one of two and neither is the reason the manufacturers are advertising whenever they downsize from a V8 to a V6.

Any V6 will have greater potential than any 4-cylinder. More accurately, the engine with the most displacement before forced induction will inherently have greater potential than the one with less. While some on here like to disparage it, the saying "no replacement for displacement" is and will always remain true as far as internal combustion is concerned. And before anybody claims "turbocharging," just what do you think forced induction does? That's right, it increases the displaced volume.

The man in the iron mask > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 22:16

0

Ttruth spoken

The man in the iron mask > Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT 05/20/2014 at 22:18

2

You're the kind of people that say your 4 banger beats V8s
Let me tell you, the GT manages to fight with an M3, and that was with a live axle.
But meh buy what you want, more GTs for the rest of us.

The man in the iron mask > Axial 05/20/2014 at 22:19

0

Truth has been spoken

Thank you

cluelessk > Axial 05/20/2014 at 22:21

0

Meh I'm super picky when it comes to exhaust tone and can't ride in some people cars because of those sounds. It doesn't have a bad tone when idling.

Also keep in mind that this is recorded with a almost 2 year old phone. Not gonna get the full sound range.

You seem to think every car needs to sound like a v8. Wastegates and turbo noises add to the whole experience. Why would you want to drown out and hide them?

Under load the car sounds completely different I just don't happen to have any video of it.

The man in the iron mask > Jayhawk Jake 05/20/2014 at 22:22

1

Well stay with your bullshit four bangers, they are more unreliable over time, and if something fucks up, its going to empty your wallet.
V6 with some bolt ons will beat your turbo ass, and still be quite reliable, whilst the turbo will likely have some failures. As it is more complex.

Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT > The man in the iron mask 05/20/2014 at 22:23

0

The fact that I do beat Mustang GT's in my Cobalt....I've raced the 08 body style both in a dig and highway roll and not walked them, but definitely had them by a decent amount.

I'm not cocky about it, I know what I can beat, what I can't, but I still willingly race anyone at the track.

I get the GT is a good car, I never said it wasn't, I just said I personally would prefer the Ecoboost, or hell, even more preference to the car I own right now. I'm not a ford fan, but I do like some of their cars.

Jedidiah > Axial 05/20/2014 at 22:24

0

You have managed to clearly describe what a good sound is like without the need for someone to hear it. That's better than poetry.

OkCars- 22k Crossroads > cluelessk 05/20/2014 at 22:25

2

Keep clowning around, i will have the last laugh when your technology lets you down and makes you waste a ton of money to fix it.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Axial 05/20/2014 at 22:26

0

I'm going to kindly disagree about the V6.

The 3.6 LY7 in my mom's Vue sings in the higher RPMs, and you can barely hear it at idle. Yes, turbo 4s make more power, but all the torque in the LY7 engine is available at 2500 RPM.

I will agree with the 4-cylinder engine though. Most drone on, but there are the select few that can sound good. (Abarth, Cobalt SS with proper exhaust, etc..)

The man in the iron mask > Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT 05/20/2014 at 22:27

0

Well, i was reffering to the Coyote engine, that is the one that levels with the M3, and im sure the 2015 with IRS will make more justice.

Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT > The man in the iron mask 05/20/2014 at 22:29

1

Haven't had a chace to race a Coyote, have driven a few when I worked at a Ford dealer, definitely a fun car to use in a snow storm....personal experience. But again, something I don't really prefer.

The man in the iron mask > Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT 05/20/2014 at 22:32

0

Well then its clear that ford kept the 8, 6 and brought the 4 cylinder to attract more people that have different tastes in what engines they'd like. Because not everybody likes the V8

Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT > The man in the iron mask 05/20/2014 at 22:34

0

I've owned a few V8 powered cars, one being a Mercury Cougar a 95 I think, with a Cobra swap....

Crown Vics, numerous others.

But for now, a cylinder is all I need, hell my truck is a4 cyl haha

cluelessk > OkCars- 22k Crossroads 05/20/2014 at 22:40

1

Lol wut?

They've been turboing cars for years GM seemed confident enough to warranty the drivetrain for 100,000 miles. It's not some ticking time bomb.

Your v6 has some pretty new tech then too. DOHC and independent cam timing.

Why don't you just stick with a sbc? Cause progress is obviously a bad thing. Who wants increased power and efficiency?

PardonMyFlemish16 > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 05/20/2014 at 22:42

0

I def get the practical side of having the 2.3 in the Mustang lineup. I also think it would help Ford's fleet average more as the base volume entrant. And I am glad the 2.3 is around to help keep the V8 alive. But make no mistake.... as far as Mustangs go, the V8 is all that matters. Once Ford figured out EFI the SVO was gone.

2.3T will, for all intents and purposes, weigh about the same as the V6. The V6 is only 100lb lighter than the V8, and that all isn't necessarily just due to the engine. The V8 is also very nimble as is- nimble enough to dance with an M3 on a track. Plus with the boost cranked up the 2.3's powerband will be no bueno, cancelling out what marginal balance gains it has from the lower weight.

cluelessk > The man in the iron mask 05/20/2014 at 22:42

1

Really? Lets see proof.

cluelessk > PS9 05/20/2014 at 22:45

2

Half the commenters are convince new technology is bad because it's more complex.

Little do they know the v6 they're talking about has some relatively new and "complex" tech.

Progress is a good thing.

Jayhawk Jake > The man in the iron mask 05/20/2014 at 22:46

0

They are more unreliable over time based on what? The newer generation of turbo fours haven't been around long enough to make such a claim.

Also, the V6 with some bolt ons might beat the turbo, but the turbo with bolt ons will probably beat the V6 with bolt ons.

Welcome to the future

OkCars- 22k Crossroads > cluelessk 05/20/2014 at 22:50

0

But i was saying if you want to modify the car, the turbo will have much more stress. And for that reasons it could have problems.
increased power and efficiency for the cost of reliability is not cool. Many mustang owners will buy aftermarket parts like bolt ons, they wont leave the engine stock.

Burrito de EJ25 > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 22:51

0

Besides the cost?

The man in the iron mask > cluelessk 05/20/2014 at 22:55

0

Well really, im just writing what im reading on other comments. but what dated engine, he said dated. the current V6 is just 3 years old. And it is pretty decent in mileage. The sound is Arguably better than a turbo four. I know, people have different opinions. But most of them will prefer the sound of the sixer.

The man in the iron mask > Jayhawk Jake 05/20/2014 at 22:58

1

But the V6 will beat the turbo with a simple supercharger.
And you can put a turbo on your turbo.
Besides, what dated v6, its been 3 years. And its pretty modern.

The man in the iron mask > Jayhawk Jake 05/20/2014 at 23:05

0

Oh and unreliable as in you need to service it more times than a NA: so waste all the money you want, im done talking here

Axial > cluelessk 05/20/2014 at 23:10

0

Prepare for longpost! I apologize in advance.

I will grant you that it is really hard to tell when a car is droning over a potato YouTube video. I may also have a different threshold for what I consider a drone than you do.

That said, your car sounds like it has a rather high idle. It's got that unique-to-four-bangers hum going. As we established, the video is not sufficient to tell whether it is resonating, but 99% (number is a WAG, I just can't remember any examples to the contrary) of performance 4-pots I've run across that have this hum are resonating, hence my conclusion. Your overrun is also not much different than my friend's 2.4 L Ion Redline, which has a Borla exhaust and sounds great for a 4-pot but not that great all engines considered. His also has that same hollow sound, even accounting for the frequencies lost (which are usually the extreme ends).

As for comparing the V8s, it's just a baseline. BMW's I6 engines also sound great, as does the Aston V12 and the Viper V10 (from outside...inside it's total shit). And it's not necessarily displacement, either. The F355 sounds incredible, and it's tiny by V8 standards.

What makes it sound good is the overlap between cylinders firing. The overrun timing is shorter, allowing it to sound smoother (because it also runs more smoothly). A 4-cylinder cruising runs at a rev range above that comfortable burble afforded by large displacement engines with more pistons. It sounds strained there. When you push it, it's now trying to rev really high, really fast, and it just can't do it because the stroke is too long and the bore too narrow and there are aren't enough cylinders to compensate (typical passenger car has a stroke-to-bore just under 1, while performance cars such as IndyCar and NASCAR and Formula One have a Stroke:Bore that is significantly under 1). It again sounds strained, because it's having a hard time keeping up with your demands.

As for wastegates, imagine if a single beep followed every bar on one of your favourite songs. That's why I don't like wastegate dumping, because it does it on every lift.

cluelessk > OkCars- 22k Crossroads 05/20/2014 at 23:13

0

4 cylinder guys buy lots of aftermarket parts too. In my case my turbo is good for 350whp and the bottom end is good for 500whp. Minor bolt ons and a turbo swap you can have 500 reliable whp.

Your argument is falling apart.

cluelessk > Axial 05/20/2014 at 23:18

0

First you're comparing a 2.4 naturally aspirated engine to a 2.0 turbocharged one. The 2.4 will always sound different.

You're also thinking of a bov which my car doesn't have. It has a recirculating valve that dumps excess air back into the intake. The only time you hear the wastegate is at full boost which you'll never ever hit unless you're beating on the car. It's silent in normal driving.

The rest I didn't really read. Seems like you wanna argue for the sake of arguing.

Axial > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 05/20/2014 at 23:23

0

A lot of R&D has gone into turbos to eliminate lag. Modern turbo-4s can make close to their maximum torque as early as 1700 RPM these days, and carry it onwards. It's not like the 1980s and 1990s where they had to rev for awhile to get to boost.

As for V6s, they certainly don't din. However, they don't exactly have a focused tone standing outside the car. As an outside observer, not a passenger, the 3.6 L LY7 (and the derived LLT and LFX) sounds awful from a Cadillac or a Camaro.

If turbo-4 engines typically came with a bore-to-stroke closer to 0.5, they'd sound better. They'd be a pain in the ass to drive in traffic, but at least they could sound good at speed rather than being "meh" all around.

Jayhawk Jake > The man in the iron mask 05/20/2014 at 23:37

0

Who says you have to service it more than the NA? My turbo has longer sevice intervals than my previous NA car...

The man in the iron mask > Jayhawk Jake 05/20/2014 at 23:39

0

the dealer says so. and that about your cars may be because your previos car was older.

OkCars- 22k Crossroads > cluelessk 05/20/2014 at 23:42

0

What argument? Its a fact. you're just mad because its true. The V6 you just add a supercharger, and silences all your turbos, with a sweet whine.

wiffleballtony > PardonMyFlemish16 05/20/2014 at 23:44

0

As much as I think anything but a v8 in a mustang is sacrilege, there are a lot of people who just want a fun looking car and don't care as much about exhaust notes and power curves.

Jayhawk Jake > The man in the iron mask 05/20/2014 at 23:48

0

What dealer? All these claims with nothing to back it up...

My last car was a MY2011 versus the 2013 I have now. Regardless, that proves my point: turbochaged engines have come a long way, reliability is on par with NA. Of course the current crop haven't really been around long enough to make a claim about reliability either way, but all signs point to longevity.

The man in the iron mask > Jayhawk Jake 05/20/2014 at 23:53

0

They are reliable as long as you dont push on them. Take one to the track, i see many turboed cars with check engine lights, and failures because the unit gets overheated. I admit ive seen NA engines give up too, but not so much as the turbos.

Axial > cluelessk 05/21/2014 at 00:06

0

First, stroke-to-bore is going to be similar on his car and yours. Thus, because you both have the same number of cylinders and the displacement is still comparable, it's going to sound similar regardless of volume. Yours produces a slightly higher pitch because it's idling higher, but it's very, very similar. I have heard many modified, turbocharged Cobalt SS in person; the probability that yours is much different from what I've experienced is very low.

I also didn't say your car had a blow-off valve; I made that clear in the first reply to you. All I said is that I dislike the giant "PSSSSH" that happens on lift with a lot of powerful turbocharged cars that do have it.

If you want to turn hostile and plug your ears just because you can't get over the fact that your engine is straining to do what you want it to do and it sounds like it, be my guest. Your name fits, I guess. You've been trying to put me on the defensive since your first post, and now when you find that the gaps are plugged and you are starting to lose ground you cop-out with the popular "oh now you're arguing for the sake of arguing" when I've stayed precisely on topic with something meaningful to say each time to address your concerns.

If you're going to try to change my opinion on 4-banger noises, you are going to have to do a little better than posting a potato-shot video of you revving your econobox.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Burrito de EJ25 05/21/2014 at 07:15

4

All the folks talking about getting the Ecoboost are talking about buying all kinds of bolt ons and chips. Might as well put that into the V8.

PardonMyFlemish16 > wiffleballtony 05/21/2014 at 07:16

0

Those people should buy BRZs and CR-Zs.

Philbert/Phartnagle > PardonMyFlemish16 05/21/2014 at 07:21

0

I'd buy one to drive and keep just because of what it is, a direct injected, turbocharged 4 cylinder. Of course, I already have my V8 Mustang sitting in the garage to protect my "man" cred.

Burrito de EJ25 > PardonMyFlemish16 05/21/2014 at 10:24

0

It's a different approach. It's not always about gobs and gobs of power coming from big, heavy displacement.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Burrito de EJ25 05/21/2014 at 10:34

1

But people are talking about getting V8 power out of the 2.3. If people are gonna do gobs of power I'd rather have mine from a big V8 than an overworked 2.3. Plus if you aren't going to get a motor that is balanced with the chassis (as the GT will be) why get the car at all? Might as well get something totally different.

Saracen > PardonMyFlemish16 05/21/2014 at 15:12

1

The only way I could get a Mustang is if it came with that glorious, snarling V8.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Saracen 05/21/2014 at 16:27

1

A Mustang without a V8 is like.... going to a restaurant on the coast of Maine, and saying "no thanks, I will have the chicken"

Why bother?

MPA > PardonMyFlemish16 05/22/2014 at 16:09

0

I've had turbo 4s (MkIV GTi, '09 WRX) and they were fun cars. But it's definitely not the same as having the grunt of a V8.

If I was going to get a '15 Mustang, it'd be the GT. I'm not racing it on a track - if it was going to do a track day, lap times don't mean shit, it's all about having fun for me.

I'm sure the Turbo 4 will end up making a lot of power in the hands of the talented. We have a guy here in STL with a 2.3 turbo'd fox body - he's making 900hp according to the MM&FF article, and running low 9s, which is impressive no matter what's under the hood.

http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured-vehic…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBNCT4AvzMc

PardonMyFlemish16 > MPA 05/22/2014 at 17:32

0

I heard an 11-14 uncorked on the way home today. Beastly. Barring a turbo S2000 I haven't heard a turbo 4 with that kind of vocal presence.

signintoburnerlol > PardonMyFlemish16 05/30/2014 at 22:33

0

Gotta love it when people are guessing modified power figures on a car that isn't even out yet.

Reminds me of when before the FRS came out, some tuners were promising 250WHP with just bolts on and a tune, they didn't even touch the car yet. Ha.

samssun > PardonMyFlemish16 05/30/2014 at 22:56

0

I'm going to keep screaming this until everyone comes to their senses: the turbo 4 and NA V6 make zero sense, when they have the 3.5 TT, which needs to go into something <4k pounds.

At the very least, they could use the 2.7 TT. Either way, sell a TT V6 and NA V8 and let people go to town on both, not two half baked engines.

PardonMyFlemish16 > samssun 05/30/2014 at 23:04

0

3.5TT overlaps too much with the V8. Europe has it right. 2.3 turbo as the budget economy rental option, V8 for people actually buying the car to own. The 2.3 and V6 make each other redundant. I prefer the V6 but I realize we are in the era of paper specs and the 2.3 wins out there. 3.5TT is heavier + probably costs more than the V8... really makes no sense.

samssun > PardonMyFlemish16 05/30/2014 at 23:56

0

Yeah, I just think the 3.5 TT has such great potential it needs to go into something that isn't monstrously big. If not the Mustang, at least the Fusion (which isn't a small car).

If the 3.5 isn't doable, the 2.7 TT is the obvious next choice.

S60 Sasha > PardonMyFlemish16 05/31/2014 at 08:53

1

Can we just stay with the fact that the word "Eco" should never find itself near a Mustang? That should be argument enough, and that goes for its class rivals as well.

xcheck44 > Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT 05/31/2014 at 09:05

0

Funny how you said ".....bad tune.".

I see many of these types of posts before I see " great, stable tune."

I'd love to see the condition of the piston tops, ring lands and valve faces on all these "bad tune" engines (as well as some of these 'good tune' engines).

People think they're experts because they have a laptop, COM port cable and some software they downloaded.

xcheck44 > Axial 05/31/2014 at 09:08

0

The V6 engines you're speaking of were designed for your typical commuter car, not sports cars, hence their exhaust note.

Nick, Drives a Cobalt LT > xcheck44 05/31/2014 at 09:54

0

That was the old engine on a bad tune. Yeah I coked the rings and blew the piston up.

But now I'm on a "smart" tune low boost, still making good power from the engine, its getting retuned again to adjust some fueling issue I'm having, in the lower RPM I get a hesitation.

I don't have any tuning software, I never claimed to be a tuner, I have a company out in Michigan doing my tuning.

mrzissou2 > PardonMyFlemish16 05/31/2014 at 12:14

0

If you care about performance at all you'd realize that there is more to it than just HP. The turbo 4 will be less nose-heavy than the GT and if Ford takes advantage of that it will handle better.

Axial > xcheck44 05/31/2014 at 12:49

0

That literally means nothing. Ferrari has plenty of engines that sound like garbage, and every engine they build is a sports car engine. As further evidence against your theory, I submit the GT-R as a drone-machine and the anaemic-sounding V6 F-Type, though the latter is the closest-to-nice sounding V6 on the market.

Team6.1 > PardonMyFlemish16 05/31/2014 at 13:39

0

Nailed it.

The Tunnel > cluelessk 05/31/2014 at 14:44

0

What proof? What is the turbo timer do you know why it exists?

The turbo is more delicate and if it breaks it will empty your wallet.

PardonMyFlemish16 > S60 Sasha 05/31/2014 at 15:09

1

Right??? If you are scared of low gas mileage buy a Prius.

PardonMyFlemish16 > mrzissou2 05/31/2014 at 15:12

0

The 2.3 will probably not weigh much less, if at all, than the V6. The V6 handled no better than the GT with the same suspension and tires. Balance is important but the Mustang is massive and nose heavy no matter what engine you put in it. This is goofy bench racer logic. The kind of thing someone with a 320i says to "rationalize" buying it "over" an M3. I am not one of those guys who puts numbers ahead of the driving experience... but the marginal balance advantage of the 2.3 is washed out by the power, torque, response and sound of the V8. V8 all the way, spare me these goofy prole rationalizations.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Burrito de EJ25 05/31/2014 at 15:16

0

If you can't afford a new GT, buy an old one. If you are scared of low gas mileage, buy a CR-Z. If you want to "crank up the boost", buy an old DSM. Don't encourage this Eco garbage.

mrzissou2 > PardonMyFlemish16 05/31/2014 at 15:31

1

The M3 sedan has perfect weight distribution, which is something that BMW consistently achieves with their compact sedan, no matter what trim level. They do this despite the increases in cost of using mostly aluminum body panels up front because balance is important in how a car feels and handles. For a track car the difference it makes in understeer/oversteer behavior is huge.

mrzissou2 > PardonMyFlemish16 05/31/2014 at 15:33

1

There's a whole spectrum of style, space, and efficiency that consumers look for when buying cars but you seem to think only in black and white.

PardonMyFlemish16 > mrzissou2 05/31/2014 at 15:43

0

Actually, the "perfect" weight distribution is ~40/60. More even distribution of braking power, and more mass centralization by putting the engine either deep behind the front axle or just behind the cabin.

And even with imperfect balance, understeer/oversteer can be fixed with tires/suspension/track width. 20-30mm wider tires will go a lot further at adding front end grip than a couple of lbs of engine weight. I'd rather have the GT and have to put bigger front tires on it, than have the crappy sounding, crappy throttle response having, taxed 2.3

PardonMyFlemish16 > mrzissou2 05/31/2014 at 15:46

0

Don't move the goal posts. If you are looking for balance, the Mustang is not the car you want, no matter what engine it is. But if you are looking at a Mustang, the only trim worth buying is the GT. The 2.3/V6... you may as well get the Genesis or a BRZ. The SVT Cobra is pretty much a 1 trick pony. GT is as good as an E92 M3 for half the price. 2.3 will not improve on that.

mrzissou2 > PardonMyFlemish16 06/02/2014 at 08:27

0

I want a fuel-efficient (30 mpg+), American-made coupe that is fun to drive and has a somewhat useful backseat. What are my other options?

PardonMyFlemish16 > mrzissou2 06/02/2014 at 08:47

0

Lol, such specific, convenient demands, and another moving of the goal posts. There is a plethora of fun to drive fuel efficient American sedans, and fun to drive fuel efficient foreign coupes. Why not go that way, instead of bastardizing the Mustang to fulfill some contrarian quest?

pootiestang > Jayhawk Jake 06/13/2014 at 11:39

0

I'm pretty sure a turbo engine has a lot more things that can go wrong with it, especially with tuning and adding more power than a v6 or v8 will. I was considering the turbo stang until i read this. if you buy a turbo 4 stang the communist win, lmao

Dr Brigadoon > PardonMyFlemish16 05/14/2015 at 13:21

1

I’m sorry but this entire article falls apart when you actually look at any dyno of the Ecoboost mustang... Here’s one with bolt ons and an off the shelf tune, custom dyno tunes have already hit 400 + RWTQ

Tell me that looks like a laggy, torque lacking powerband.
Also now realize that the Ecoboost is significantly cheaper than the V8 and weighs less, so it actually handles better. If you want to have a fun drive in the twisties it’s obvious the Ecoboost is better. If you’re out on a wide open racetrack or the strip then I’d recommend the V8.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Dr Brigadoon 05/14/2015 at 22:04

0

Ecogoof Mustang sounds like ass and doesn’t handle much better than the V8. Look at that weak ass HP rating. This thing is boosted to an inch of its life and still down from a base Coyote. And again it sounds like ass and will def have worse throttle response. OK, I can deal with an engine like this in a Golf station wagon, but not a Mustang. A Mustang w/no V8 is pointless.