I'm not going to say that you're wrong on the sound. But feel wise... Remember the Mustang Cobra around year 2000? An iconic OVER built motor to be sure. A real Modders dream too a few bolt on parts and you were pretty well over 500hp and great performance.
The new ecoboost 4 produces 310 HP and 350ftlbs of torque on like 2.5 liters I believe. That overbuild v8 was pushing 385hp and ft lbs of torque.
It's amazing what the 4 cylinder can do today.
Plus with gas being what it is...
Who am I kidding I'll probably end up with a subaru WRX for my next ride and save some bones to get a HD Tri Glide... used. Or a converted Valkyrie.
The Terminator Cobras used a V8 and then added a supercharger on top of that to produce an underrated amount of HP and with minimal effort, those things were absolute monsters. That's what was appealing about them as the 4.6L modular engines were difficult to improve naturally aspirated. Furthermore, being able to crank up the boost and add fuel to get more power is precisely what's appealing about the Buick Grand National, the 20th Anniversary Turbo Trans Am, diesel trucks and EcoBoost engines like the one in the Mustang.
Don't kid yourself though. The EcoBoost cars are NOT fuel efficient if you are doing anything but cruising at 50-60MPH. If you start modding them, that only gets worse.
Might you be referring to the 2003-2004 SVT "Terminator" Cobra with the iron block that was hella overbuilt from the factory and could hit around 1,000 HP before needing serious mods (which is why it was called the American 2JZ)? If I'm not mistaken, there was no Cobra for 2000 cuz the 1999 Cobra made less power than advertised and Ford wanted to address the issue. I think it came back in 2001 or 2002. Those were the ones with orange turn signals in the back. The Terminator Cobra didn't have orange turn signals for the rear lights (which made me kinda sad). Also the Terminator Cobra was the first Mustang with an independent rear suspension (which wouldn't be standard until the 6th-gen Mustangs).
Yes those.
Which if I am not mistaken is slightly more power than the V6 Mustang and V6 Camaro made. Still, I wasn't happy when they ditched the V6 Mustang and left just the EcoBoost model.
It never made sense to me for Ford to offer both the V6 and the EcoBoost engines simultaneously. The things people generally liked about the V6 were done better by the EcoBoost and the latter engine can achieve far more performance with tuning than the former and do so for less money.
I really can't see why anyone would want the V6 over the EcoBoost. Perhaps reliability, but I'm not sure how much of a difference that really makes here.
Yeah but the EcoBoost is turbocharged, it doesn't make the power on its own. Also the EcoBoost line is some trash in terms of reliability/durability. You'll be lucky if they make it to 100,000 miles, and if they do, they won't make it much farther than that.
There are EcoBoost engines out there now with a crap ton of miles on them. I don't believe any rhetoric saying that they can't make it to 100,000 miles. However, I've heard of enthusiasts blowing up their EcoBoosts with too much boost. As for the 100,000 mile thing, plenty of vehicles have gone over that but that's usually about the time these cars go to their second owners anyway.
Are these engines more problematic than the V6 was? Probably but that could be said about any naturally aspirated engine compared to anything turbocharged or supercharged. Is the failure rate egregious or unacceptable overall? I've seen no data that leads me to make that conclusion.
Coyote V8 doesn't need premium gas, but the EcoBoost does.
No, the Coyote equipped cars do not necessarily need premium fuel although the manual recommends that you use premium or higher octane fuel in them. While I wouldn't consider anecdotes as hard evidence, for whatever its worth I can tell the difference between the two in my car.
I'm scared cuz I keep hearing the next STI might be fully-electric, or a hybrid. No thank you.
Unfortunately, a lot of vehicles are headed that way.
2.3L. My Ecoboost is putting down 350 to the wheels. I could push it to 400 on an E30 tune, but I'm not doing that considering the limited availability of E85 around me. The only issue is the turbo lag is real. With my wastegate actuator it doesn't hit until 2500 RPM, but when it does it's a kick in the pants.
I liked the sound of my 3.7L V6 more than the Ecoboost, for sure, but from my own experience the Ecoboost is just a better platform to start with.
For me, the V8 was a must but if I had to choose between the V6 and the EcoBoost it would have been the latter hands down. I'd agree with you about the sound but the sound is a large part of why I always opt for a V8 when its available.
You're right about the durability. Nothing about the engine is over-engineered. The cylinder walls are thin and the semi-open deck limits how much boost you can push through it. The safe limit on the stock block is 26-27 PSI and around 450 wheel HP. It was developed as an economy engine, first and foremost. Even the 3.7L V6 will hit a wall if you try to push it past 550 wheel HP. If you want an over-engineered engine with a small number of cylinders, check out the 3-cylinder in the GR Corolla.
I've definitely heard of people destroying their engines with too much boost. Unfortunately, these are a far cry from the engines that went into the Buick Grand National or the Turbo Trans Am.
The Ecoboost doesn't need premium to run, but it does need premium to get the most HP. You lose 30 HP on 87 compared to 93. The High Performance Pack Ecoboost requires 91.
The manual for the V8 car says pretty much the same thing.
