Car Enthusiast Club [Now Motorcycle friendly!] - First thread to 150k! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[AlwaysFSX]

STRIPE.

 

I'd black stripe it. Or pearl gray.

[JoaoPRSousa]

STRIPE.

Ford's white with blue stripes is love.

[AlwaysFSX]

Ford's white with blue stripes is love.

:wub:

 

I kinda want to vintage paint the project Mustang but I don't know the paint codes and I'm too lazy to find them.

[chaozbandit]

:wub:

 

I kinda want to vintage paint the project Mustang but I don't know the paint codes and I'm too lazy to find them.

 

Found em ^^

 

http://paintref.com/cgi-bin/colorcodedisplay.cgi?model=Mustang&year=1965&rows=50

[AlwaysFSX]

Found em ^^

 

http://paintref.com/cgi-bin/colorcodedisplay.cgi?model=Mustang&year=1965&rows=50

I'm pretty sure that's missing the blue and orange..

[AlwaysFSX]

Yeah paintref is missing the vintage colors.

[MEC-777]

Until someone with a boosted 5.0 shows up.

 

...after spending A LOT more $ on it.

 

You seem to have missed the point a bit. These cars do not sell because they are the most advanced things on the planet, but because the market base like the memory of the 70's muscle cars, and a big (arguably the biggest) part of that is the big displacement V8s. So if one of the manufacturers is no longer using V8's while the others are; it will not bode well for them. 

 

For the record I see both NA, and forced induction applications as having their place. A lot of what you are saying is true, and some of it is half truths. Yes a turbo does increase volumetric efficiency considerably, and yes you can create a flat and usable torque curve. But comparing forced induction and naturally aspirated engines is more complex, than what you have stated. Most modern forced induction engines use a lower compression ration compared to their NA counterparts, therefore are actually less efficient (thermodynamically) when not under boost; like stop and go traffic for example. Once the engine is on boost (highway cruising) it is (generally) more efficient.

 

About the only way to really compare the two would be to take a standard engine design say 5L V8, and scale it to 2.5L V8 with forced induction set up to match CFM with the larger sibling. This never really happens though so you are caught drawing conclusions based on an experiment with many variables, comparing an Evo and a Mustang GT is a difficult task. 

 

EDIT: I am not trying to pick on you, I just hate "Always Statements"  I re-read this and it sounds like I am hating on turbos; trust me, I am not. I am a turbo fan as well. I have built a few turbo charged engines for FSAE cars in college. I am even currently shopping for a new turbocharged daily driver. 

 

Oh, I understand the whole idea behind getting more sales "because V8". But that's irrelevant to me. I'm speaking from my own perspective, not sales. I buy based on the merits of the thing, itself, and the aspects that appeal to me most. I'm not like most people in the way I make decisions - I don't care if I buy a Mustang without a V8, as long as it has merits that make it more interesting (to me), technologically advanced, more efficient etc. (and it's still fast, of course ). I think you understand what I'm saying.

 

A turbo 4 or 6 cylinder car that's as fast as or faster than the V8 version of that same car, is more fascinating and impressive to me because of the nature of what it is, how it does what it does and what it represents (technological advancement). 

 

You are correct in that there are other factors involved with comparing turbo vs NA engines, (like compression ratios etc.). I just tried to keep my post as simple as possible and mainly touch on the general points. Just one thing I'll comment on here with regards to turbo engines and off-boost performance; they don't have to be making full boost to get an improvement in volumetric efficiency. Even while at zero boost/vacuum, a turbo can and will improve the VE under light throttle/loads. Also, see below...  

 

 

 

 

Mercedes-AMG C63 Coupe / Mercedes-AMG C63 S Coupe

Displacement 3982 cc / 3982 cc

Output 469 hp at 5500-6250 rpm / 503 hp at 5500-6250 rpm

Peak torque 479 lb-ft at 1750-4500 rpm / 516 lb-ft at 1750-4500 rpm

 

 

Look at those horsepower and torque figures. Now look at the rpm range in which those figures are produced. Not only is peak torque spread across the majority of the rev range, the horsepower is also no longer a "peak" but a small plateau as well. And look at the displacement of this engine. This is what turbocharging can do and this why I find it so fascinating. Just like the GTR can out-accelerate lots of cars with higher "peak" power figures (and higher price tags), this car is also capable of doing the same, easily. It's all because the turbocharging allows the engine to produce gobs of power all the time, at almost any given rpm between 1750 and 6250.

 

Take two 2015 mustangs. One with the 5.0 and one with the ecoboost V6 twin turbo. The ecoboost can be tuned to make more hp and tq than the 5.0 without even opening the hood. Also, say they have the same tires, suspension etc. and you tune the ecoboost to make the same hp/tq as the 5.0, the ecoboost will be faster around a road course than the 5.0 simply because of the wider usable power band (faster out of the corners and faster down the straights). That I would put money on.

[AlwaysFSX]

...after spending A LOT more $ on it.

I dunno, wouldn't the cash you sink in to mods for a turbo 4 be applicable for the turbo 8? Same cash, vastly different power outputs.

[AlwaysFSX]

Look at those horsepower and torque figures. Now look at the rpm range in which those figures are produced. Not only is peak torque spread across the majority of the rev range, the horsepower is also no longer a "peak" but a small plateau as well. And look at the displacement of this engine. This is what turbocharging can do and this why I find it so fascinating. Just like the GTR can out-accelerate lots of cars with higher "peak" power figures (and higher price tags), this car is also capable of doing the same, easily. It's all because the turbocharging allows the engine to produce gobs of power all the time, at almost any given rpm between 1750 and 6250.

 

Take two 2015 mustangs. One with the 5.0 and one with the ecoboost V6 twin turbo. The ecoboost can be tuned to make more hp and tq than the 5.0 without even opening the hood. Also, say they have the same tires, suspension etc. and you tune the ecoboost to make the same hp/tq as the 5.0, the ecoboost will be faster around a road course than the 5.0 simply because of the wider usable power band (faster out of the corners and faster down the straights). That I would put money on.

I want your knowledge when I have the money to build a race car. o_O

[chaozbandit]

 

Look at those horsepower and torque figures. Now look at the rpm range in which those figures are produced. Not only is peak torque spread across the majority of the rev range, the horsepower is also no longer a "peak" but a small plateau as well. And look at the displacement of this engine. This is what turbocharging can do and this why I find it so fascinating. Just like the GTR can out-accelerate lots of cars with higher "peak" power figures (and higher price tags), this car is also capable of doing the same, easily. It's all because the turbocharging allows the engine to produce gobs of power all the time, at almost any given rpm between 1750 and 6250.

 

 

Plus the fact that the W205 C-Class V8's (M177) get the same engine as the AMG GT, with both turbos inside the split of the V thereby increasing response and efficiency. Though, compared to the previous W204s that went with supercharging, I'm curious as to how the various workshops will take to the new car. Swapping the turbo isn't exactly easy with the tight packaging, and then you have to deal with the extra heat.

 

 

Can't wait to see how the new Mercs handle our Canadian winters since it's a new AWD system.

 

It's a bit early, but are you going to the Auto Show in Jan?

[MEC-777]

I dunno, wouldn't the cash you sink in to mods for a turbo 4 be applicable for the turbo 8? Same cash, vastly different power outputs.

 

Not really. The comparison I made originally was of a tuned V6 turbo (ecoboost) vs a stock 5.0L V8. A tuned ecoboost wouldn't cost anywhere near what it would to add turbocharging to the 5L V8.

 

I want your knowledge when I have the money to build a race car. o_O

 

I'm no expert by any means, but I have been involved in building and racing cars since the mid-2000's (10 years or so). Combine that experience with an advanced diploma in mechanical engineering and a deep hunger to learn how everything works, you pick up on a few things.  

 

One book, in particular, was extremely informative and taught me a lot about the fundamental principals of turbocharging along with many other things I didn't know or realize about engines. I think it was this one: 

 

 

Awesome book if you can get your hands on a copy.

[techswede]

Not really. The comparison I made originally was of a tuned V6 turbo (ecoboost) vs a stock 5.0L V8. A tuned ecoboost wouldn't cost anywhere near what it would to add turbocharging to the 5L V8.

 

 

I'm no expert by any means, but I have been involved in building and racing cars since the mid-2000's (10 years or so). Combine that experience with an advanced diploma in mechanical engineering and a deep hunger to learn how everything works, you pick up on a few things.

 

One book, in particular, was extremely informative and taught me a lot about the fundamental principals of turbocharging along with many other things I didn't know or realize about engines. I think it was this one: 

 

Awesome book if you can get your hands on a copy.

The books i got during my mechanics training were the most ghetto things ever. 

Basically just thick notebooks with stuff printed in them..

[AlwaysFSX]

Not really. The comparison I made originally was of a tuned V6 turbo (ecoboost) vs a stock 5.0L V8. A tuned ecoboost wouldn't cost anywhere near what it would to add turbocharging to the 5L V8.

Yeah but you also said a 3.5L EcoBoost in a Mustang, as far as I'm aware that's much more expensive to do since they don't come stock. ;D

[Real_PhillBert]

Oh, I understand the whole idea behind getting more sales "because V8". But that's irrelevant to me. I'm speaking from my own perspective, not sales. I buy based on the merits of the thing, itself, and the aspects that appeal to me most. I'm not like most people in the way I make decisions - I don't care if I buy a Mustang without a V8, as long as it has merits that make it more interesting (to me), technologically advanced, more efficient etc. (and it's still fast, of course ). I think you understand what I'm saying.

 

That would put you well outside of the standard SRT buyer

 

Not really. The comparison I made originally was of a tuned V6 turbo (ecoboost) vs a stock 5.0L V8. A tuned ecoboost wouldn't cost anywhere near what it would to add turbocharging to the 5L V8. 

 

The V6 available in the Mustang is the 3.7L NA V6. Not the Ecoboost. I imagine they don't put the Ecoboost V6 in it for exactly the reason you listed. 

 

I didn't know you were an ME as well. *High five*

[MEC-777]

Plus the fact that the W205 C-Class V8's (M177) get the same engine as the AMG GT, with both turbos inside the split of the V thereby increasing response and efficiency. Though, compared to the previous W204s that went with supercharging, I'm curious as to how the various workshops will take to the new car. Swapping the turbo isn't exactly easy with the tight packaging, and then you have to deal with the extra heat.

 

Well, here's another fun fact about turbos: they are extremely reliable and practically maintenance-free (unlike superchargers). My Golf with almost 300k kms still has the original turbo and it's still in great shape (no bearing noise or excessive oil seepage). So the turbos on these merc engines should easily last the life of the vehicle.

[chaozbandit]

Well, here's another fun fact about turbos: they are extremely reliable and practically maintenance-free (unlike superchargers). My Golf with almost 300k kms still has the original turbo and it's still in great shape (no bearing noise or excessive oil seepage). So the turbos on these merc engines should easily last the life of the vehicle.

 

Unless you neglect to take care of the engine, then material buildup inside the turbine becomes a thing or its not cooled properly But yeah on a $70K+ Merc, they should be fine.

 

Still longing to buy my first turbo car.

[MEC-777]

 

Yeah but you also said a 3.5L EcoBoost in a Mustang, as far as I'm aware that's much more expensive to do since they don't come stock. ;D

 

That would put you well outside of the standard SRT buyer 

 

 

The V6 available in the Mustang is the 3.7L NA V6. Not the Ecoboost. I imagine they don't put the Ecoboost V6 in it for exactly the reason you listed. 

 

I didn't know you were an ME as well. *High five*

 

Yeah, I'm definitely not the average SRT buyer. lol. 

 

It appears I have made an error in that I assumed they were planning a V6 ecoboost for the Mustang. If they use a turbo 4 cylinder (2.0L ?), that changes things a little bit as it would require a few extra modifications beyond just tuning to match the output of the 5L V8, however, such mods would still cost less than that of installing a turbo (or two) on the 5L V8. It also changes things in that power to weight comes into play. The ecoboost 4 cylinder would weigh less than the V8 model and thus not need to produce as much power to match the performance of the V8 and would definitely be an advantage on a road course.

[AlwaysFSX]

It appears I have made an error in that I assumed they were planning a V6 ecoboost for the Mustang. If they use a turbo 4 cylinder (2.0L ?), that changes things a little bit as it would require a few extra modifications beyond just tuning to match the output of the 5L V8, however, such mods would still cost less than that of installing a turbo (or two) on the 5L V8. It also changes things in that power to weight comes into play. The ecoboost 4 cylinder would weigh less than the V8 model and thus not need to produce as much power to match the performance of the V8 and would definitely be an advantage on a road course.

2.3L turbo 4.

 

Apparently it's a pretty good canyon carver.

[techswede]

I've been trying to find a gif that shows how detached some modern cars feel from everything outside them.

And i think i just did

[Real_PhillBert]

Yeah, I'm definitely not the average SRT buyer. lol. 

 

It appears I have made an error in that I assumed they were planning a V6 ecoboost for the Mustang. If they use a turbo 4 cylinder (2.0L ?), that changes things a little bit as it would require a few extra modifications beyond just tuning to match the output of the 5L V8, however, such mods would still cost less than that of installing a turbo (or two) on the 5L V8. It also changes things in that power to weight comes into play. The ecoboost 4 cylinder would weigh less than the V8 model and thus not need to produce as much power to match the performance of the V8 and would definitely be an advantage on a road course.

 

2.3L. The 2.3L Manual mustang is 3532 lbs, the 5L Manual is 3705 lbs. The 4 cly is 95% the weight of the V8 model. I see where you are trying to go, but you are going to need a lot of help to get that 2.3L past the 5L on a road coarse. The Ecoboost V6, I agree you could probably do it with relative ease; that 4 cyl, not so much. 

[carguy86]

eeeeehhhhhhhhh....... some guy claims to have purchased a complete ford gt body (freshly restored with suspension and all but no engine) for the whopping price of 580 us dollars (WITH DOCUMENTS) (and no its not a replica)

[warmmilk]

2.3L. The 2.3L Manual mustang is 3532 lbs, the 5L Manual is 3705 lbs. The 4 cly is 95% the weight of the V8 model. I see where you are trying to go, but you are going to need a lot of help to get that 2.3L past the 5L on a road coarse. The Ecoboost V6, I agree you could probably do it with relative ease; that 4 cyl, not so much. 

 

but its 150lb off the front axle...  it makes a significant difference

 

that being said I'll go for the 5.0 everytime, I love that engine! (I have a '14 GT)

[techswede]

eeeeehhhhhhhhh....... some guy claims to have purchased a complete ford gt body (freshly restored with suspension and all but no engine) for the whopping price of 580 us dollars (WITH DOCUMENTS) (and no its not a replica)

Calling bullshido on that right away

[Real_PhillBert]

but its 150lb off the front axle...  it makes a significant difference

 

that being said I'll go for the 5.0 everytime, I love that engine! (I have a '14 GT)

 

I'm not saying it's nothing. I am always harping on weight. But it is not as large of a difference in weight as many people think. 

[carguy86]

Calling bullshido on that right away

so did i but the guy was so persistant about it. (i think he must have it confused with some other car (cortina gt 1500?))