Jump to content
Drew Dowdell

Ford News: Ford Mustang to get Second Turbo-4 Engine Option in 2020

Recommended Posts

The folks over at Hagerty found something interesting on the NHTSA website the other day, a VIN decoder ring that shows a second 2.3 liter 4-cylinder turbo with a horsepower rating of TBD.   Ford dropped the V6 in the base Mustang after 2018 deciding the Turbo-4 was enough, but crosstown rival Chevy kept their V6 going alongside their 275 horsepower 2.0T.  While Ford's 2.3T beats the Chevy Turbo in power, it comes up short against Chevy's V6.  With this finding, it looks like Ford is going try to rectify the deficit.

Given that a similar 2.3T is good for 350 hp in the Focus RS, Ford should be able to easily surpass the 335 horsepower the Camaro V6 produces.  A statement from a Ford representative declined to give details but said that we would have exciting news about Mustang in Spring 2019.

 


View full article

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder since their current turbo 4 banger is 310 HP only on Premium 93 octane gas if this engine and what ever the updated  same engine will get regular gas?

93 Octane does not exist out here on the west coast so one could never get the full 310HP, course I wonder how much of a drop Premium 91 would cause?

@Drew Dowdell If memory serves me correct, GM's Turbo 4 does not require Premium does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dfelt said:

Wonder since their current turbo 4 banger is 310 HP only on Premium 93 octane gas if this engine and what ever the updated  same engine will get regular gas?

93 Octane does not exist out here on the west coast so one could never get the full 310HP, course I wonder how much of a drop Premium 91 would cause?

@Drew Dowdell If memory serves me correct, GM's Turbo 4 does not require Premium does it?

Neither engine requires premium. But yes, the GM 2.0T is tuned for regular in most applications. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me nuts, but Id take one  in a heartbeat.  Make it AWD and call it a Mustang RS and Im good. I may not even have to salivate over a Hellcat.

  OK...NOW you could call me nuts :retard: 

 

AWD on a pony car sounds interesting to me though. 

Challenger has got it on their V6...

Why not on a Mustang with 350HP or more. Its gonna be a  4 cylinder so no screwing around with the front engine/rear drive V8 formula...🤔

But Ill be good with no AWD too...

 

 

 

Edited by oldshurst442

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Call me nuts, but Id take one  in a heartbeat.  Make it AWD and call it a Mustang RS and Im good. I may not even have to salivate over a Hellcat.

  OK...NOW you could call me nuts :retard:

 

 

Neither car is really for me. The Camaro V6 is a more exhilarating drive with more than enough power.  The Mustang Ecoboost is a better car for everyday use... easier to get in and out of, more trunk room. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Neither car is really for me. The Camaro V6 is a more exhilarating drive with more than enough power.  The Mustang Ecoboost is a better car for everyday use... easier to get in and out of, more trunk room. 

I really LOVE the Camaro's performance. Im PROUD that its an American car and it craps on EVERYTHING in its way.

But I cant for the life of me enjoy it because I HATE how it looks. I do NOT like ...I HATE...I LOATHE ITS LOOKS!

My sweet spot is a Mustang GT or Challenger Scatpack. Or I could settle for a 4 cylinder convertible Mustang or the Challenger R/T

My DREAM CAR is the Hellcat/Red Eye.  The Hellcat/Red Eye would be driven  once in a while on a Sunday drive somewhere (too powerful, Id kill myself, really, because I LOVE speed and I would be tempted by the Devil himself to drive fast with them) but the others mentioned would be daily driven. 

 

Edited by oldshurst442
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldshurst442 said:

I really LOVE the Camaro's performance. Im PROUD that its an American car and it craps on EVERYTHING in its way.

But I cant for the life of me enjoy it because I HATE how it looks. I do NOT like ...I HATE...I LOATHE ITS LOOKS!

My sweet spot is a Mustang GT or Challenger Scatpack. Or I could settle for a 4 cylinder convertible Mustang or the Challenger R/T

My DREAM CAR is the Hellcat/Red Eye.  The Hellcat/Red Eye would be driven  once in a while on a Sunday drive somewhere but the others mentioned would be daily driven. 

 

Don't you like black cars? The newest Camaro looks good in black... it hides the blackface. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Don't you like black cars? The newest Camaro looks good in black... it hides the blackface. 

Yes! I LOVE black cars. 

My sports cars, I do prefer them in flashy colours while my fancy shmancy luxury sedans I prefer them in black, but as far as the Camaro goes, I actually prefer the new car's face...but only in black.

I hate the Camaro's looks overall. Not only its face. 

I think, I KNOW that the movie Transformers turned me off completely with the Camaro.

The first year the Camaro came out. I really dug it. But then GM dragged it on and on.

We got a first glimpse of the Camaro (2009-2010) when the 1st Transformer movie came out (2007). 3 years later we got the actual car.  I still liked it. But then Transformer movie after Transformer movie and the Camaro's look never changed...UGH...

2007-2019.  That's 12 years of basically the same look that we get... OK...10 years of the same look that we still get.

I know. I know. The Challenger is basically the same thing. Yeah but, there is something about that Challenger though. 

Its got it going on....it got a certain mojo about it. The Camaro does not.

Hey...even the new Transformers movie, Bumblebee...went original VW bug...THAT MUST prove something about what Im talking about. :huh:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current Mustang is a nicer Mustang than the current Camaro is at being a Camaro.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question: when are we getting a new Camaro anyway? The current one seems so small and closed in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Good question: when are we getting a new Camaro anyway? The current one seems so small and closed in.

I would think it's a while yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 79 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online



  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By dwightlooi
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.

      View full article
    • By dwightlooi
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.


      This post has been promoted to an article

      This post has been promoted to an article

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.


      This post has been promoted to an article

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.


      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...