K-Roll PSA: I hate replacement for displacement/forced induction/Rant!

"K-Roll-PorscheTamer" (k-roll390) 09/24/2014 at 10:39 • Filed to: Fuel Economy Bullshit

6

68

[Disclosure: This is K-Roll's opinion, if you like it, good for you; if not, deal with it]

I hate how the NHSTA and EPA have so much more control over the automotive world than the automotive engineers it seems. And I hate how everything is going towards "TURBO EVERYTHING", and that everything is getting a damn four-cylinder; Mustang(I don't care that there was already one in the 80s-90s), The future Cockster and Cayman, maybe even the future Camaro. pisses me off.

Now I'm not saying turbocharged cars are bad at all; I love the STs, hot hatches in general and other small cars that do likewise; but I'm completely against replacing motors in sports cars and supercars for forced induction.

The only thing that I honestly like is the C7s cylinder deactivation and active fuel management system, I would much rather pay however much of a premium for this kind of technology than god damn turbocharging.

This stuff is interesting:

Cylinder Deactivation (Active Fuel Management) System Description

To provide maximum fuel economy under light load driving conditions, the engine control module (ECM) will command the cylinder deactivation system ON to deactivate engine cylinders 1 and 7 on the left bank, and cylinders 4 and 6 on the right bank, switching to a V4 mode. The engine will operate on 8 cylinders, or V8 mode, during engine starting, engine idling, and medium to heavy throttle applications.

When commanded ON, the ECM will determine what cylinder is firing, and begin deactivation on the next closest deactivated cylinder in firing order sequence. The Gen IV engine has a firing order of 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3. If cylinder number 1 is on its combustion event when cylinder deactivation is commanded ON, the next cylinder in the firing order sequence that can be deactivated is cylinder number 7. If cylinder number 5 is on its combustion event when cylinder deactivation is commanded ON, then the next cylinder in the firing order sequence that can be deactivated is cylinder number 4.

Cylinder deactivation is accomplished by not allowing the intake and exhaust valves to open on the selected cylinders by using special valve lifters. The deactivation lifters contain spring loaded locking pins that connect the internal pin housing of the lifter to the outer housing. The pin housing contains the lifter plunger and pushrod seat which interfaces with the pushrod. The outer housing contacts the camshaft lobe through a roller. During V8 mode, the locking pins are pushed outward by spring force, locking the pin housing and outer housing together causing the lifter to function as a normal lifter. When V4 mode is commanded ON, the locking pins are pushed inward with engine oil pressure directed from the valve lifter oil manifold (VLOM) assembly solenoids. When the lifter pin housing is unlocked from the outer housing, the internal pin housing will remain stationary, while the outer housing will move with the profile of the camshaft lobe, which results in the valve remaining closed. One VLOM solenoid controls both the intake and exhaust valves for each deactivating cylinder. There are 2 distinct oil passages going to each cylinder deactivation lifter bore, one for the hydraulic lash-adjusting feature of the lifter, and one for controlling the locking pins used for cylinder deactivation.

Although both intake and exhaust valve lifters are controlled by the same solenoid in the VLOM, the intake and exhaust valves do not become deactivated at the same time. Cylinder deactivation is timed so that the cylinder is on an intake event. During an intake event, the intake cam lobe is pushing the valve lifter upwards to open the intake valve against the force of the valve spring. The force exerted by the valve spring is acting on the side of the lifter locking pins, preventing them from moving until the intake valve has closed. When the intake valve lifter reaches the base circle of the camshaft lobe, the valve spring force is reduced, allowing the locking pins to move, deactivating the intake valve. However, when cylinder deactivation is commanded ON, the exhaust valve for the deactivated cylinder is in the closed position, allowing the locking pins on the valve lifter to move immediately, and deactivate the exhaust valve.

By deactivating the exhaust valve first, this allows the capture of a burnt air/fuel charge or exhaust gas charge in the combustion chamber. The capture of exhaust gases in the combustion chamber will contribute to a reduction in oil consumption, noise and vibration levels, and exhaust emissions when operating in V4 mode. During the transition from V8 to V4 mode, the fuel injectors will be turned OFF on the deactivated cylinders. The ignition system secondary voltage or spark is still present across the spark plug electrodes on the deactivated cylinders. If all enabling conditions are met and maintained for cylinder deactivation operation, the ECM calibrations will limit cylinder deactivation to a cycle time of 10 minutes in V4 mode, and then return to V8 mode for 1 minute.

Switching between V8 and V4 mode is accomplished in less than 250 milliseconds, making the transitions seamless and transparent to the vehicle operator. The 250 milliseconds includes the time for the ECM to sequence the transitions, the response time for the VLOM solenoids to energize, and the time for the valve lifters to deactivate, all within 2 revolutions of the engine crankshaft.

The cylinder deactivation system consists of the following components:

The VLOM assembly

Eight special valve lifters, 2 per deactivating cylinder

The engine oil pressure regulator valve for cylinder deactivation operation

Gen IV cylinder deactivation engine block

The ECM

Valve Lifter Oil Manifold (VLOM) Assembly

The cylinder deactivation system uses an electro-hydraulic actuator device called the valve lifter oil manifold (VLOM) assembly. The VLOM is bolted to the top of the engine valley, below the intake manifold assembly. The VLOM consists of 4 electrically operated Normally Closed Solenoids. Each solenoid controls the application of engine oil pressure to the intake and exhaust valve lifters on the cylinders selected to deactivate. Engine oil pressure is routed to the VLOM assembly from a passage on the rear of the cylinder block.

All 4 VLOM solenoids are connected in parallel to a fused ignition 1 voltage circuit, supplied by the powertrain relay. The ground or control circuit for each solenoid is connected to the engine control module (ECM).

When all enabling conditions are met for cylinder deactivation, the ECM will ground each solenoid control circuit in firing order sequence, allowing current to flow through the solenoid windings. With the coil windings energized, the solenoid valve opens, redirecting engine oil pressure through the VLOM into 8 separate vertical passages in the engine lifter valley. The 8 vertical passages, 2 per cylinder, are connected to the valve lifter bores of the cylinders to be deactivated. When vehicle-operating conditions require a return to V8 mode, the ECM will turn OFF the control circuit for the solenoids, allowing the solenoid valves to close. With the solenoid valves closed, engine oil pressure in the control ports is exhausted through the body of the solenoids into the engine block lifter valley. The housing of the VLOM incorporates several bleeds in the oil passages to purge any air trapped in the VLOM or engine block.

To control any contamination to the hydraulic circuits, a small replaceable oil screen is located in the VLOM oil inlet passage, below the oil pressure sensor. The oil pressure sensor is a 3-wire sensor which provides oil pressure information to the ECM.

During service, use extreme care in keeping the VLOM assembly free of any contamination or foreign material.

Engine Control Module (ECM)

The engine control module (ECM) is responsible for the management and control of all engine functions. Each ECM comes equipped with a specific set of software/calibrations designed for that engine and vehicle application. The ECM will determine engine operating parameters, based upon information from a network of switches, sensors, modules and communication with other controllers located throughout vehicle. Internal to the ECM is an integrated circuit device called a low-side driver. The low-side driver is designed to operate internally, like an electronic switch. An individual low-side driver controls each valve lifter oil manifold (VLOM) solenoid. When enabling conditions for V4 mode are met, the ECM will command the low-side driver to ground each VLOM solenoid control circuit, in firing order sequence. Internal to the low-side driver is a fault detection circuit, which monitors the solenoid control circuit for an incorrect voltage level. If an incorrect voltage level, such as an open, high resistance, or short to ground, is detected, the low-side driver, along with the fault detection circuit, will communicate the condition to the central processor in the ECM. The ECM will then command a return to V8 mode, set a corresponding DTC, and illuminate the malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) on the instrument panel.

Now maybe I don't like this new direction cars are taking, maybe I don't like the change, I frankly don't give a damn. I'd much rather have a large-displacement automatic than a low-displacement turbocharged motor with a manual. If the Corvette, Mustang, 911 and all other cars like these lose their signature motors for forced induction, then there's no hope for humanity. I'd like to see automakers do more of what the Corvette has done in response to fuel economy.

EDIT: Thank you Travis for reminding me of what's better than a small turbocharged motor, A BIG TURBOCHARGED MOTOR!!

End Rant

Sweet Trav > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 10:41

10

K-roll, While i love the rumble of a big engine... remember this:

The only thing better than a small turbocharged motor is a big turbo charged motor.

Please enjoy the World's Fastest Production Car, Powered by a Twin Turbo LS V8

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Sweet Trav 09/24/2014 at 10:42

0

I need to add this to my PSA!!! You're being quoted, prepare for assimilation.

Imirrelephant > Sweet Trav 09/24/2014 at 10:47

0

John Hennessey is a mad genius!

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 10:48

1

Displacement on demand only recently was technologically viable. I would guess another stopgap would be to combine a DoD 6 or 8 with a hybrid system to buy time before all electric or an alternative fuel is used. But the DoD stuff was tried back in the day....oh lord, it was awful. The cadillac V8-6-4......look it up.

Give it time. You can bet that as long as gas powers the common car, big V8s and other high power NA motors will be around somehow.

Big Bubba Ray > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 10:49

2

I love that the new Mustang is being offered with a turbo 4 and a bad ass 5.0 V8. More options are better for everyone!

Maybe that's not what you're getting at. I just wanted to use this meme.

JGrabowMSt > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 10:50

0

Cylinder Deactivation goes way, way back dude. The GM L99 engine was among the first that was implemented on a wide scale with some success (someone feel free to correct that). It featured "DoD" which was Displacement on Demand. This was in the late 90's, early 2000's.

The "New HEMI" (what I have, 03-05 model year 5.7L engines only when paired with automatic transmissions) also offers what's called "MDS" or Multi-Displacement System. Same basic principle as Displacement on Demand. My Magnum does this. It shuts off half the cylinders when in cruise control or between 18-55mph, based on load to the engine. I average 20MPG out of my 5.7L, and if dyno'd, it should still show in the ballpark of low 300HP figures. Engines with "light" mods, even up to 290k miles will show 330+ HP (depending on the mods), and return similar gas mileage.

Is it new? No. Is it still awesome? Absolutely. I would take cylinder deactivation any day of the week over a turbo V6, with the sole exception being the GNX.

Are turbo V6 engines fast? You bet they are. They just aren't for me.

Sweet Trav > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 10:51

1

I can remember being 17 and talking to my dad about the 2005 WRX STi that made 300! HP out of a 2.5l flat four. He said "Wow thats great they're getting that much power out of that itty-bitty jap motor (not a politically correct man my father) just remember that there is no replacement for displacement, anything you can do to a small motor you can do to a big motor"

While I love the theory of power and economy that small turbo 4's and 3's give us in daily drivers and hot hatches, if you take that technology and put it on a big honking V8, you, as evidenced above, get something special.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Big Bubba Ray 09/24/2014 at 10:51

1

And they're trying to phase out the great 3.7L V6 that hasn't been around more than at least 5 years...I WANT A 2015 V6 PREMIUM PERFORMANCE PACK BUT I CAN'T GET ONE ANYMORE BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING ECOBOOST!! (-_-)

FUCK YOU ECOBOOST.

GhostZ > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 10:51

2

Personally, I think we're coming close to an MPG squeeze, where it is going to cost more to the owner of the car upon purchase than they'll save in MPG through driving. I think we're already past that point. Consider that 5MPG more (without making compromises elsewhere) probably costs about an extra $5000 of sticker price, minimum, due to the added cost of advanced engineering, aluminum, carbon fiber, etc.

If you drive 10,000 miles a year like most people (who don't have long commutes, that is) a jump from 25mpg to 30mpg equates to a $300/year savings . That means you have to own and drive the car 100,000 miles before you make up the difference in cost. And let's not even begin to think about rising gas prices. If gas later on rose from $4.00 to $4.80, you're not saving anything, just keeping up.

And that's a good scenario. Rising from 35 to 40 MPG? $150/year. That's 200,000 fucking miles before you'll ever make back that $3000 premium. And if they raise gas prices to $4.50 in the next 20 years you'll never make that back. Who wants to gamble on those odds?

What people need to do is sell cheap cars that cost very little to run, and have acceptable gas milage. Give me a $12,000 car with a 120-150HP 4 cylinder that makes 30MPG, a usable trunk, weighs around 2800lbs. No turbos, no touchscreens, no gadgets. I already own a phone. I want a cheap, reliable 2 or 4 door CAR (not a hatch) that I can lease on a college salary that doesn't look like a pimple that grew out of a Chevy Cobalt.

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 10:53

0

Maybe you'll like this:

Supercharged Tritec I4 - not designed for fuel economy but for performance. Driven gently on the combined cycle, it'll get around 33MPG and 20MPG in the city. Smooth, instant boost from any gear, accompanied by a glorious supercharger whine. Voted one of Ward's 10 Best Engines of 2003.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut 09/24/2014 at 10:55

0

Sounds promising, but I'm just getting sick of removing cylinders and adding forced induction in general. What's that supposed to be in anyway?

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > JGrabowMSt 09/24/2014 at 10:57

0

I would like turbo V6! Or even Turbo I5! I'm getting sick of Turbo I4 though. I had no idea cylinder deactivation was that old though; the C7 seemed to breathe life into the idea again. I would've never heard of it if it wasn't for the Vette. And it's honestly one of the coolest things I've ever heard of.

I need to know more about this stuff. Videos an diagrams?

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 10:58

0

1st gen Cooper S - it's got nearly 50hp more over a standard Cooper!

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Sweet Trav 09/24/2014 at 11:00

0

Neither is my father(he's the reason I'm not driving anything not 'Murican or European). What you're saying is exactly my point, get as much economy out of the big motors as possible without forced induction; I'm sure it might be difficult, but it can't be too hard with money and time right?

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > GhostZ 09/24/2014 at 11:02

0

Time to start buying and driving classic cars daily.

But I get what your saying; the automotive world seems to be going downhill for owners, yes?

Big Bubba Ray > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:02

0

Are you going to hate me if I say that the V6 should go? Cause I think it should. To me, it's just a basic work horse of an engine. Nothing special about it, really.

For the 2015, the Ecoboost has at least 300 HP/300 lb-ft of torque. The V6 has about 300 HP/270 lb-ft of torque. I don't know why anybody would spring for the V6 if there is a smaller, more powerful and fuel efficient engine. Ideally, I'd have the 5.0, but given the choice between the Ecoboost and V6, I'd go Eco every day. I'm sure the tuning capabilities of the turbo 4 will be insane also. Small mods like intake, exhaust, and even simply a new down pipe will push much more power out of the 4 banger.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut 09/24/2014 at 11:03

0

What kinda power is it making?

The man in the iron mask > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:05

1

I feel you I hate it as well, Also i feel they could juice up the V6 like they have been doing with the coyote since the engine came out, but no, these fuckers come up with a 4 cylinder turbo that has more hp than the V6. Tell them to go fuck themselves, they take away the Dual exhaust from the V6 that makes more sense than a 4 cylinder with dual exhaust. Those fuckers, i hate them, they are trying to force people to buy the turbo. You and me, are not falling for that crap.

JGrabowMSt > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:05

1

http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f309/mds…

That's a link with a great text explanation to the MDS system

A hydraulic system is in place that will hold the pushrod in place, as opposed to allowing the cam to drive the valve open. The valves stay closed on the cylinder in order to prevent a compression loss. In addition to the valves staying closed, no fuel is added to the cylinder.

The L99 and 5.7L both operate using the same principals for the lifters.

Somewhere there is actually a gif of how it functions, if I can find it again, I'll post it.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > Big Bubba Ray 09/24/2014 at 11:08

1

I disagree with you here, if you want a tuner engine get the V6 and slap a turbo on after warranty expires. Overall thought I 100% agree with K-Roll. This 4 banger stuff has to stop. It's happening in trucks to. I do not get the ecoboost thing.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:09

1

Couldn't agree with you more. It goes beyond sports cars and extends into trucks as well. I don't get the ecoboost thing, there's no way you could ever convince me that it will be more reliable than the 5.0 after 200,000 miles.

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:10

0

So much, 168hp!

There was a company that took it up to 275bhp before. Quite mad if I say so myself.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Big Bubba Ray 09/24/2014 at 11:11

1

I'm not gonna hate you, but I'm sure as hell gonna disagree with you to the end of time.

I don't care that it's not special, it was and still is a damn good workhorse of a motor. I'd much rather have one of those than a damn Ecoboost. Your reasoning for having the Ecoboost instead(smaller motor making more power) is exactly the reason I hate it and made this rant. If Ford actually had a V6 Performance Pack, I'd take it over a damn Turbo I4, I don't care how much you can tune it and how much power you can get out of that damn 4-banger, nothing anyone does to it will ever make me want it. It'll still sound bad to me, it'll still be worth shit to me, I just don't care nor do I give a damn about the Ecobust.

Now if it was a Turbo I5, that'd be worth looking at. I'd much rather have a proper 5.0, but if I had the choice of the Ecobust and V6, I'M TAKING THE V6 and modding the hell out of it.

Big Bubba Ray > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:13

1

Haha fair enough!

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > The man in the iron mask 09/24/2014 at 11:13

0

Damn right. At the very least, Ford should have made more options for the V6, or made it so all 3 engine options could coexist, but no. They fucked up.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut 09/24/2014 at 11:13

0

I'd take one in put it in something.

Big Bubba Ray > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 09/24/2014 at 11:16

0

That's the great thing about the Ecoboost, though! It's already to the turbo on there. I don't know, maybe I'm an outlier, but I love the Ecoboost engine and that it's offered in the new Mustang.

I will agree with you that the Ecoboost in trucks needs to go away. It's stupid. I know a guy that just picked up an Ecoboost F-150 and he hates it. Says it doesn't get any better mileage than his V8 F-150. That engine should not be in trucks or SUVs.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > The man in the iron mask 09/24/2014 at 11:24

0

Wait. They took away the dual exhuast???

Manuél Ferrari > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:25

1

preach on brother!!!

#NA4LYFE

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Big Bubba Ray 09/24/2014 at 11:26

0

It's just one of those things that shouldn't have to go right now. Unless they're replacing it with a Turbo V6; I think this is what should replace the V6 and Ecoboost.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Manuél Ferrari 09/24/2014 at 11:27

1

I want a NA 400hp F82!!

Manuél Ferrari > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:28

1

forget that. You want ze 918 with all batteries and electric motors removed!

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Manuél Ferrari 09/24/2014 at 11:29

1

Drop in a Carrera GT V10

Manuél Ferrari > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:31

1

or we could just get CGTs!

EL_ULY > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:32

0

Yeah, too many kids on Youtube quote Clarkson "how can Americans get so little HP out of such a big motor"......... when tiny V6 indycar engines make more than F1 cars lol. It is possible, even in America (which is always at the butt end of all this) to make small , high HP engines. Longevity, power band, and durability is key though

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Manuél Ferrari 09/24/2014 at 11:33

0

Or...

crowmolly > GhostZ 09/24/2014 at 11:33

1

^ Nailed it.

Cost/benefit is not just for MBA classes.

GhostZ > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:37

0

More that there's a significant amount of consumers who irrationally buy based on MPG, not ownership cost, and new cars are being built to reflect that, resulting in overall worse vehicles than they could be because of the cost compromises made for a higher MPG number.

Storz > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:40

1

I must be a weirdo, but I want a turbo 4cyl powered mid engine superlight weight Corvette.

nermal > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:40

1

The big thing that skeeves me about turbo engines is the discrepancy in fuel usage between driving like a grampa and driving properly. I have a Jeep powered by a boat anchor that somehow produces rotating force and noise while consuming large amounts of petrol, as well as a 2.0t GTI. Both manuals, naturally.

I can shift the Jeep at 2k rpm while accelerating gingerly, or at 5k rpm while full throttle, and it still gets 17-18 mpg. By contrast, if I take the GTI from shifting at 2k rpm to 5k rpm, it drops from about 28 mpg to about 20 mpg.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > nermal 09/24/2014 at 11:52

0

That too! With the turbo, it's seems like its damn near impossible to not be in its power band. I get shit MPGs with the FoST because I can't granny shift it. And if I did, it'd defeat the reason I got it in the first place. Turbo MPGs are lies!!

1337HPMustang > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 11:59

1

man you're going to have a crisis when the 600 hp GT350 drops. 5.2 L N/A V8 and 600 hp confirmed, meaning the engine will be revving to at least 8000 rpm...

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 12:52

0

Shoulda gotten the FiST bro, 30MPG all day, erriday.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 09/24/2014 at 13:07

1

Looking back, I could have, but I didn't wanna wait however long it was gonna take to get one built; what is it, 6-12 weeks? I would be in a Mustang by then and probably with more cash in my wallet.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > 1337HPMustang 09/24/2014 at 13:14

0

*In my head*

GT350 POWEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 13:16

0

True, if I had to order one it would be a lot tougher decision. Fun fact: there were more FiSTs than FoSTs in my city when I got mine, although only one performance blue one.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 09/24/2014 at 13:24

0

There was maybe two FiSTs when I got mine, a tuxedo black and a green one; in no way was I gonna daily the green one. And black was outa the question.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 13:26

0

Understandable, the green is just... wrong. Black is too damn hot.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 09/24/2014 at 13:32

1

The black would have been too much effort for me to clean weekly.

1337HPMustang > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 13:49

0

I think it's going to be more like a track weapon so imagine it being less of a burnout machine and more like a race car. If they wanted just 600 hp to shred tires and go fast in a straight line, they would have bolted a supercharger on a 5.0. This new GT350 is going to chase a 911 GT3 down, shove a middle finger in its face, then proceed to indicate where the porsche can suck some exhaust.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > 1337HPMustang 09/24/2014 at 13:57

0

Ok now, that's a bit too far there. Porsche Tamer is still here. :P

1337HPMustang > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 14:18

0

Well Mr. Porsche tamer, I'm sorry to say that I hope I'm right. The idea of a factory Mustang racecar is too awesome for me to mind my words ;)

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > 1337HPMustang 09/24/2014 at 14:22

0

This is true. Gimmie a new Mach 1. Make it happen Ford, or else.

twochevrons > nermal 09/24/2014 at 14:26

0

My 850R is the first turbocharged car that I've owned, and it really caught me out in this respect. The power band has two parts: "Old-person slow," and "OHMYGODBOOST." There is no middle ground, and the fuel economy differs accordingly. It's an automatic, so you don't have a huge amount of say in when it shifts, but its sport and economy modes to a pretty good job of approximating my preferred shifting style, and granny-shifting, respectively.

If you can hold a constant speed, it's actually pretty economical for a car its size and weight – on the highway, it'll hover around the high twenties and low thirties. But as soon as you hit the city, you invariably end up dipping into the boost at every stop, and that figure plummets to the mid-teens. From somebody who was used to a little N/A four that would get the same (excellent) mileage no matter how you drove, it was quite a shock.

DirtyBird > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 14:27

0

put 14k miles on a 13 v6 and I never had an issue, even with the ac full blast driving through constant 110+ (high of 123) desert heat in a black car all day. I will own another one down the road

Manuél Ferrari > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 14:27

0

or?

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Manuél Ferrari 09/24/2014 at 14:35

1

Idk. :P

YSI-what can brown do for you > 1337HPMustang 09/24/2014 at 15:10

0

Are you serious? Cause. . .

HIGH REVVING CROSSPLANE V8S ARE MY FETISH!!!

The man in the iron mask > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 15:20

1

I had read it on Road and track but months back, before the mustang was on sale. Apparently the three of them have dual exhaust. http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/s…

1337HPMustang > YSI-what can brown do for you 09/24/2014 at 15:48

0

you better believe it

"We hear they've had one spinning happily at 7500 rpm for quite some time for a durability test. As for power, we're guessing close to 600 hp and around 430 lb-ft of torque." - source

Also I listened to the whole 15 minutes of that mustang racing and realized I could race in a car like that all day.

YSI-what can brown do for you > 1337HPMustang 09/24/2014 at 15:54

1

Oh man, I am seriously pumped. I haven't been excited for a new car since forever honestly. Probably the Aventador but even then I was kind of meh towards it. This is gonna be amazing.

That Mustang goes to SVRA events, if you have a track close to you that holds a SVRA vintage race go and see it! Probably my favorite V8 'Murican Muscle car there!

Big Bubba Ray > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 16:21

0

Ok I'm back because I'm trying to get this through my head, not because I want to stir shit haha

What exactly is wrong, in your opinion with the turbo 4? Let's, for now, pretend that the V6 wasn't being phased out. Would you still hate it?

It's going to be a small engine, probably weigh less than the V6 so better handling, have more power than the V6, rear wheel drive, stick...this checks all the right boxes! And when driving it, hooning, tearing through back roads, what have you, would you really say "ah shit this sucks. I wish I had a V6." It's more about the driving experience than the cylinder count. There's SO much fun to be had with any car, no matter then engine displacement. I can have a shit ton of fun in my Outback even though it's a torque-less 4 cylinder. I can also have a blast driving around my Datsun with its torquey I6. I've never wished for more cylinders because it's about how you use and drive the car, not always about how it's powered.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND, KARL.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Big Bubba Ray 09/24/2014 at 16:53

0

No, I wouldn't hate it if the V6 wasn't being phased out.

And driving through the back roads that I don't know or have in Michigan, I'd still want the V6

To me, the V6 is part of the driving experience. It's the sound and feel of naturally aspirated power that entices me to want it. It's the sound of 6 cylinders that I grew up with; that sound of any motor with 6 or 12 cylinders is very important to me; I personally prefer 6 though. Sure, the I4 can drive as good or even better than the V6; it can be a more involving drive, but it's missing the thing I hold most dear. Before the FoST, I enjoyed just driving my dads magnum around. The motor was weak and the car was heavy; but the sound when you put your foot down was all I needed to enjoy it.

The FoST is an excellent car to thrash and drive; but why do you think I spent $1k on the exhaust? Because I hated the econobox sound and wanted it to be more. It's much better sounding, but still not good enough, not loud enough for me. That's why I wanted, and should've gotten a V6 Mustang instead. Sure it would've been getting flak for not having a V8, but I love the V6 sound even more.

At the end of the day, the Ecoboost may be a great car and that's great, but to me, it'll just sound like any econobox around, and no amount of exhaust tuning and induced sound symposer will change that. I don't care that the V6 has less power/torque than the Ecoboost either, I'd still pic it for the sound.

Big Bubba Ray > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 17:04

1

Now I understand. Thank you! To each his own.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Big Bubba Ray 09/24/2014 at 17:16

0

I mean, that doesn't put me in the wrong does it?

Big Bubba Ray > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/24/2014 at 17:21

1

Not one bit. Everybody is entitled to their opinion! I prefer the 4, you prefer the 6. Nothing wrong with that at all!

samssun > Big Bubba Ray 09/25/2014 at 06:08

0

The reason is that the 2.3 liters of the 4 is an inherent limitation. The turbo mitigates it somewhat, but you're not going to get a whole lot more out of the stock turbo because it has to be sized to have a reasonable spool from only 2.3 liters of exhaust. Big power means big laggy turbo.

With 3.7 liters, you have significantly more exhaust flow, and therefore the same sized turbo would spool much more quickly, OR you could have a bigger turbo be just as responsive but with much more top end. A turbo is a multiplier of, but not a replacement for, displacement.

What the Mustang really needs (deserves?) is a TT V6, then drop the other two so you don't have 3 separate engines and trims. The 3.5TT would be a monster but probably a non-starter due to competition with the V8, but even the 2.7TT would be a significantly better choice than the 2.3T or 3.7 NA.

Jedidiah > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 09/25/2014 at 13:21

0

Finally. Someone said it.

N/A all the way unless you want to make serious power, but that's kinda pointless if you want to drive your car on the street.