2018 Mustang - Next New Car?

[Route246]

Interesting debate over muscle cars. Being a 4 time Mustang owner, I never thought of them as muscle cars, rather "pony cars".

I always considered muscle cars to be 64-69 GTO's, Road Runners, Chevelle's, Cuda's... or the coveted 68 Gran Torino GT500.

Either way, I have best of both worlds... an 05 GT Ragtop with the 4.6 V8, BORLA ATAk cat-back exhaust, Air-Raid CAI and Hust Short throw shifter.

On the other hand I have the 16 EB Premium w/ Pony Pack.

I love them both! I was so impressed with the EB I had to have one.... A 2 hr ride from Chandler to Flagstaff is a pice of cake for this boosted Stang.


I also just rented a GT In UT, and I have to say... the EB holds its own. Factor in all the creature comforts, cooled/heated seats, SYNC 3... what is not to love?


Sent from my iPhone using AGOnline

My 2.3L EcoBoost RS puts out (est) 440BHP at the crank and it does 3.8 0-60 with a manual shift and launch control disabled. It cost less than $4K to boost it from 350 factory HP, much of it from the Cobb tuning. I can beat or match most stock pony cars, most stock Corvettes and most naturally aspirated 911s. This little 4-cylinder is a beast. Never thought something like this would ever be available in my lifetime. It has a wide power and torque curve, too, so it behaves well in traffic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Klasse Act]

THIS!

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[MIsnowman]

I think they should have had the twin turbo v6 as found in the raptor and drop the V8. I predict that will happen at some point. The V8 within 5 years will only be found at the drag strip

If you believe some of the rumors the V8 won't be going away, but will be getting some boost!!! That would make for an awesome car. There are some boosted 5.0's making some crazy HP numbers.

 

[PouncingPanzer]

There is no replacement for displacement, except forced induction But, I must say, SAVE THE STICK SHIFT!!!!!

I am not a domestic fan really, but I give Ford props, it seems they offer a good product these days and like you I have heard nothing bad about the Ecoboost lineup.

 

[PouncingPanzer]

If you believe some of the rumors the V8 won't be going away, but will be getting some boost!!! That would make for an awesome car. There are some boosted 5.0's making some crazy HP numbers.

Well, adding turbos usually does add power, but they do it mostly for CAFE ratings across the lineup and more efficiency. Lots of cars these days are going from NA to TT and not gaining much in terms of power over their predecessors. This is due to much lower compression ratios and all that good stuff. Buuuuuut, opens the doors to some nice software mods and could be easily tapped for much more power.

 

[PouncingPanzer]

My 2.3L EcoBoost RS puts out (est) 440BHP at the crank and it does 3.8 0-60 with a manual shift and launch control disabled. It cost less than $4K to boost it from 350 factory HP, much of it from the Cobb tuning. I can beat or match most stock pony cars, most stock Corvettes and most naturally aspirated 911s. This little 4-cylinder is a beast. Never thought something like this would ever be available in my lifetime. It has a wide power and torque curve, too, so it behaves well in traffic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's your take on the start/stop? I was rather surprised a car like that has it tbh. I didn't know it until driving one and it caught me by surprise.

 

[Klasse Act]

Well, adding turbos usually does add power, but they do it mostly for CAFE ratings across the lineup and more efficiency. Lots of cars these days are going from NA to TT and not gaining much in terms of power over their predecessors. This is due to much lower compression ratios and all that good stuff. Buuuuuut, opens the doors to some nice software mods and could be easily tapped for much more power.

"Not gaining compared to their predecessors", how's that? Lets look at the immortal HEMI. "Rated" at 425 HP back in the day (closer to 500 HP) and it was measured as engine HP. Fast forward to the modern HEMI, the 6.4L makes 485 HP with the new measurement. The old street HEMI was also a 7.0L and was hard to keep in proper tune, 2x4 barrels has that effect whereas the 6.1-6.4L HEMI's don't have any issues and take straight 93 octane.

Based on this I'd say they've gained quite a bit, imagine if you "tune up" a modern HEMI with just a tuner, intake and full exhaust! Adding a cam on top of those mods and FORGET ABOUT IT! I'm keeping this conversation NA to make the comparisons fair.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[MIsnowman]

"Not gaining compared to their predecessors", how's that? Lets look at the immortal HEMI. "Rated" at 425 HP back in the day (closer to 500 HP) and it was measured as engine HP. Fast forward to the modern HEMI, the 6.4L makes 485 HP with the new measurement. The old street HEMI was also a 7.0L and was hard to keep in proper tune, 2x4 barrels has that effect whereas the 6.1-6.4L HEMI's don't have any issues and take straight 93 octane.

Based on this I'd say they've gained quite a bit, imagine if you "tune up" a modern HEMI with just a tuner, intake and full exhaust! Adding a cam on top of those mods and FORGET ABOUT IT! I'm keeping this conversation NA to make the comparisons fair.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

That was real horsepower back then though, not the ponies they measure with today. lol Not sure what changed, but it is definitely not the same. A 400+ HP truck today won't do much more than a 200ish HP truck of 20 years ago. The HP may be there on paper, but in the real world, where it matters, it's a different story.

 

[Klasse Act]

That was real horsepower back then though, not the ponies they measure with today. lol Not sure what changed, but it is definitely not the same. A 400+ HP truck today won't do much more than a 200ish HP truck of 20 years ago. The HP may be there on paper, but in the real world, where it matters, it's a different story.

Could better explain "real horsepower" to me/is, inquiring minds would like to know

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[LSNAutoDetailingLSNAutoDetailing is verified member.]

That was real horsepower back then though, not the ponies they measure with today. lol Not sure what changed, but it is definitely not the same. A 400+ HP truck today won't do much more than a 200ish HP truck of 20 years ago. The HP may be there on paper, but in the real world, where it matters, it's a different story.

Could better explain "real horsepower" to me/is, inquiring minds would like to know

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

"That was real horse power back then:" Was it really?? Read on and view the sources..

In the 60's up until 1970 (ish) the US auto manufacturers used "Gross" hp ratings. Which meant they took an engine, put it on a stand without any compressors, air-conditioning, anti-smog devices and exhaust system. They measured at the fly wheel, (HP = 746 KW) p/s.

In the 60's as the engine displacements got bigger and the horsepower wars started, it wasn't uncommon for each manufacturer to do their own testing and release their own numbers for marketing. As the 60's progressed and HP ratings started increasing, pressure from safety advocates and insurance companies put pressure on the companies to lower the HP. It wasn't uncommon for the manufacturers to not make one change to the engine, rather release lower HP numbers. This was called "deliberate under-rating". GM was the biggest violator of this, and actually put a hp per pound ratio limitation on their designers.

(2) In 1971 California enforced all the emission standards and reporting of Net HP, SAE standard J1349 testing protocols for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. Thus, vast decreases in reported horsepower.

(2) In 2005, SAE Standard J2723 was enforced which meant that the testing standards and the testing itself was done by the manufacturer with an independent observer and certified at an ISO9000 testing facility. While it's true the test is done at the fly-wheel, vs. crank, the numbers from 2005 on are very accurate and must reflect all variables such as how much oil was in the crankcase, engine control system calibration, and whether an engine was tested with premium fuel.

So, while you state "that was real horsepower back then" - in actuality was it really?

Secondly, "a 400+ hp truck today won't do much more than a 200ish hp truck 20 years ago" is highly an unlikely statement. Gross HP was rated with no emissions, but the equation of 746kw per second is pretty much a standard, however, I'd much rather take a new 400HP truck, given direct inject, ISO9000 testing along knowing that all tests were performed post emissions. You'll probably find that the 200 hp truck (20 years ago) was probably lower than 200 hp by modern SAE J2723 standards.

"The HP may be there on paper, but in the real world, where it matters, it's a different story" - The only thing I can think you mean here is that HP on paper is not what is at the wheels. Which is a true statement, all testing is done at the fly-wheel. Which is why a Tesla making 700 hp, is REAL hp. The electric motors are at the wheels, "instant torque". Which is one of 'many reasons', why super-car makers like the new NSX (and I think the new Audi R8's) are doing torque vectoring with electric motors at the wheels.

(4) If independent testing with industry standards rate a modern day engine, at the fly wheel, say an EB 310 hp at "4500" RPM, it is a true test and real numbers. However, what is "real world"? More likely, it's 272hp at the wheels on a dyno (3:12 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqbaORCv2Q

(3) So while there is a discrepancy of 30 hp from the SAE J2723 vs engine testing to wheels, if you really need to eek out that 30 HP, it can quickly be done on an EB Mustang with a tune, new down-pipe and a few other mods... A fully loaded vehicle, all the trimmings (cooled / heated seats, remote start, sync-3, track apps, track and sport+ modes) in a great looking vehicle pulling down 300 hp, tune-able to who knows what, all under $30k and gets 30 mpg's (actual mpg's I got from Phoenix to Flagstaff). What isn't to love?

"Not sure what changed" - a lot! Computer designed engines for maximum power and fuel efficiency, direct injection, software driven variables, sensors, switching sensors for fuel, oxygen, etc.., ports for computers software variable tuning, also giving more variables to the drivers. http://autoweek.com/article/technology/what-direct-injection-autoweek-explains

View source #3 - the proof is in the pudding!

Sources:
1.) https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
2.) https://en.wikipedia.org/####/Horsepower
3.) American Muscle EB Mustang & BAMA Tune Dyno testing and track times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0iR59nRue0
4.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqbaORCv2Q


Hope all this helps, happy motoring!

 

[Klasse Act]

That was a Bob (FunX) type post right there!

I guess I look at 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times to see HP is alive and well, not to mention how fat and bloated the cars are AND that still doesn't matter!


Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[LSNAutoDetailingLSNAutoDetailing is verified member.]

That was a Bob (FunX) type post right there!

I guess I look at 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times to see HP is alive and well, not to mention how fat and bloated the cars are AND that still doesn't matter!


Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

I channeled Bob. lol..

Stock EB Mustang:
According to Car-and-driver: 0-60 times is about 5.2 seconds for the automatic, 5.4 for the manual.

According to American Muscle: - Stock 1/4 Mile Time: 13.6 @ 98 MPH
After a Bama tune and Airaid CAI: - Bama 93 Track Tune and Airaid Cold Air Intake 1/4 Mile Time: 12.9 @ 103 MPH

Not too shabby for a 4cylinder. While I will attest that the of firing up my 05 GT with Borla ATAK catback system (the most aggressive Borla system) breaths exhilaration, and the audible tones when going through the gears awaken the hairs on my arm, I also know I have my EB as a fun drivers car as well.

Here is what Randy Pobst had to say while taking a EB Mustang at Willow Springs: "It works!" @ 9:14
2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Takes to the Track Ignition - Motor Trend
Video includes lap and track times from Randy's run.

Just microseconds slower than the likes of Jaguar XFR-S, CLA45 AMG and 3 seconds slower than a 2013 Mustang GT Track Pack. Not bad for a car that costs much less than the competition.

 

[TTQ B4U]

The Ecoboost is relatively easy to mod well over 400HP. My 2.3 RS dynos at 397HP at the wheels and probably close to 440HP at the crank. I didn't go radical on the mods because of warranty concerns. There are plenty of Ecoboost Mustangs out there that will beat the V8s.

My 2.3L EcoBoost RS puts out (est) 440BHP at the crank and it does 3.8 0-60 with a manual shift and launch control disabled. It cost less than $4K to boost it from 350 factory HP, much of it from the Cobb tuning. I can beat or match most stock pony cars, most stock Corvettes and most naturally aspirated 911s. This little 4-cylinder is a beast. Never thought something like this would ever be available in my lifetime. It has a wide power and torque curve, too, so it behaves well in traffic.

I gotta ask what the heck cost just under $4k to get it from 350 to 440hp? IMO that sounds like a lot per hp. Stock my car laid down just over 290awhp/300awtq. As it sits I laid down 498hp/445tq on 93 pump gas. Total cost to get there was about $4,500 and that's an Audi which nothing is cheap for it.

In terms of warranty, how does Ford Respond to what you've done? I don't see them honoring a factory warranty on a Cobb Tuned car. I'm sure much like most they can scan the car and pick up signs of a tune or flash. Especially in the data log history. Just curious.

 

[TTQ B4U]

After all said and done we pulled over and chatted. He modified his Ecoboost and that is why it was so fast. BTW, I would have lost too if I did not know how to shift the manual correctly. However, I have been shifting with the manual transmission since I was 16. I know about heel and toe, double clutch shifting and speed shifting. I WILL NEVER speed shift. This kid (maybe 17 or 18) knew how to shift pretty good too. Either way it was lots of fun and I was very humbilized.

Haha, sounds like good fun. No-Lift-Shifting is likely built into his tune if not already there from the factory. Not as big of a deal for you as a boosted car though thus I agree I wouldn't.

 

[JHL88]

There have been issues with the ecoboost engines.. https://youtu.be/0irwbwpuEbQ He has a few follow up videos as well. Just something to think about when it comes to D.I. engines.. especially ones with boost. I'd go with a 5.0 if you could swing it.

 

[Route246]

"That was real horse power back then:" Was it really?? Read on and view the sources..

In the 60's up until 1970 (ish) the US auto manufacturers used "Gross" hp ratings. Which meant they took an engine, put it on a stand without any compressors, air-conditioning, anti-smog devices and exhaust system. They measured at the fly wheel, (HP = 746 KW) p/s.

In the 60's as the engine displacements got bigger and the horsepower wars started, it wasn't uncommon for each manufacturer to do their own testing and release their own numbers for marketing. As the 60's progressed and HP ratings started increasing, pressure from safety advocates and insurance companies put pressure on the companies to lower the HP. It wasn't uncommon for the manufacturers to not make one change to the engine, rather release lower HP numbers. This was called "deliberate under-rating". GM was the biggest violator of this, and actually put a hp per pound ratio limitation on their designers.

(2) In 1971 California enforced all the emission standards and reporting of Net HP, SAE standard J1349 testing protocols for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. Thus, vast decreases in reported horsepower.

(2) In 2005, SAE Standard J2723 was enforced which meant that the testing standards and the testing itself was done by the manufacturer with an independent observer and certified at an ISO9000 testing facility. While it's true the test is done at the fly-wheel, vs. crank, the numbers from 2005 on are very accurate and must reflect all variables such as how much oil was in the crankcase, engine control system calibration, and whether an engine was tested with premium fuel.

So, while you state "that was real horsepower back then" - in actuality was it really?

Secondly, "a 400+ hp truck today won't do much more than a 200ish hp truck 20 years ago" is highly an unlikely statement. Gross HP was rated with no emissions, but the equation of 746kw per second is pretty much a standard, however, I'd much rather take a new 400HP truck, given direct inject, ISO9000 testing along knowing that all tests were performed post emissions. You'll probably find that the 200 hp truck (20 years ago) was probably lower than 200 hp by modern SAE J2723 standards.

"The HP may be there on paper, but in the real world, where it matters, it's a different story" - The only thing I can think you mean here is that HP on paper is not what is at the wheels. Which is a true statement, all testing is done at the fly-wheel. Which is why a Tesla making 700 hp, is REAL hp. The electric motors are at the wheels, "instant torque". Which is one of 'many reasons', why super-car makers like the new NSX (and I think the new Audi R8's) are doing torque vectoring with electric motors at the wheels.

(4) If independent testing with industry standards rate a modern day engine, at the fly wheel, say an EB 310 hp at "4500" RPM, it is a true test and real numbers. However, what is "real world"? More likely, it's 272hp at the wheels on a dyno (3:12 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqbaORCv2Q

(3) So while there is a discrepancy of 30 hp from the SAE J2723 vs engine testing to wheels, if you really need to eek out that 30 HP, it can quickly be done on an EB Mustang with a tune, new down-pipe and a few other mods... A fully loaded vehicle, all the trimmings (cooled / heated seats, remote start, sync-3, track apps, track and sport+ modes) in a great looking vehicle pulling down 300 hp, tune-able to who knows what, all under $30k and gets 30 mpg's (actual mpg's I got from Phoenix to Flagstaff). What isn't to love?

"Not sure what changed" - a lot! Computer designed engines for maximum power and fuel efficiency, direct injection, software driven variables, sensors, switching sensors for fuel, oxygen, etc.., ports for computers software variable tuning, also giving more variables to the drivers. http://autoweek.com/article/technology/what-direct-injection-autoweek-explains

View source #3 - the proof is in the pudding!

Sources:
1.) https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
2.) https://en.wikipedia.org/####/Horsepower
3.) American Muscle EB Mustang & BAMA Tune Dyno testing and track times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0iR59nRue0
4.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqbaORCv2Q


Hope all this helps, happy motoring!

You beat me to it. Thank you for posting this because if you didn't I was going to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Route246]

I gotta ask what the heck cost just under $4k to get it from 350 to 440hp? IMO that sounds like a lot per hp. Stock my car laid down just over 290awhp/300awtq. As it sits I laid down 498hp/445tq on 93 pump gas. Total cost to get there was about $4,500 and that's an Audi which nothing is cheap for it.

In terms of warranty, how does Ford Respond to what you've done? I don't see them honoring a factory warranty on a Cobb Tuned car. I'm sure much like most they can scan the car and pick up signs of a tune or flash. Especially in the data log history. Just curious.

Downpipe+intake+catback+tune. One guy in the group I'm in has his over 500 at the wheels but he went catless, turbo upgrade and has an inter cooler.

Regarding the warranty I can't claim anything on the exhaust including the cat but reverted tune is detectable and the fact that the tune was changed but the can't know what was changed. These are all approved in Europe and subject to scrutiny in the US.

This is not my daily driver. It has 700 miles in 8 months of ownership. I'm not all that concerned about the warranty because it probably won't have more than 4K miles on it when the 36 months expire on it. I got this car to drive it hard and for track days. I'm accepting that I may have expensive driveline expenses if something goes wrong.

The most significant gain is from software followed by the downpipe and catback.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MIsnowman]

"That was real horse power back then:" Was it really?? Read on and view the sources..

In the 60's up until 1970 (ish) the US auto manufacturers used "Gross" hp ratings. Which meant they took an engine, put it on a stand without any compressors, air-conditioning, anti-smog devices and exhaust system. They measured at the fly wheel, (HP = 746 KW) p/s.

In the 60's as the engine displacements got bigger and the horsepower wars started, it wasn't uncommon for each manufacturer to do their own testing and release their own numbers for marketing. As the 60's progressed and HP ratings started increasing, pressure from safety advocates and insurance companies put pressure on the companies to lower the HP. It wasn't uncommon for the manufacturers to not make one change to the engine, rather release lower HP numbers. This was called "deliberate under-rating". GM was the biggest violator of this, and actually put a hp per pound ratio limitation on their designers.

(2) In 1971 California enforced all the emission standards and reporting of Net HP, SAE standard J1349 testing protocols for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. Thus, vast decreases in reported horsepower.

(2) In 2005, SAE Standard J2723 was enforced which meant that the testing standards and the testing itself was done by the manufacturer with an independent observer and certified at an ISO9000 testing facility. While it's true the test is done at the fly-wheel, vs. crank, the numbers from 2005 on are very accurate and must reflect all variables such as how much oil was in the crankcase, engine control system calibration, and whether an engine was tested with premium fuel.

So, while you state "that was real horsepower back then" - in actuality was it really?

Secondly, "a 400+ hp truck today won't do much more than a 200ish hp truck 20 years ago" is highly an unlikely statement. Gross HP was rated with no emissions, but the equation of 746kw per second is pretty much a standard, however, I'd much rather take a new 400HP truck, given direct inject, ISO9000 testing along knowing that all tests were performed post emissions. You'll probably find that the 200 hp truck (20 years ago) was probably lower than 200 hp by modern SAE J2723 standards.

"The HP may be there on paper, but in the real world, where it matters, it's a different story" - The only thing I can think you mean here is that HP on paper is not what is at the wheels. Which is a true statement, all testing is done at the fly-wheel. Which is why a Tesla making 700 hp, is REAL hp. The electric motors are at the wheels, "instant torque". Which is one of 'many reasons', why super-car makers like the new NSX (and I think the new Audi R8's) are doing torque vectoring with electric motors at the wheels.

(4) If independent testing with industry standards rate a modern day engine, at the fly wheel, say an EB 310 hp at "4500" RPM, it is a true test and real numbers. However, what is "real world"? More likely, it's 272hp at the wheels on a dyno (3:12 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqbaORCv2Q

(3) So while there is a discrepancy of 30 hp from the SAE J2723 vs engine testing to wheels, if you really need to eek out that 30 HP, it can quickly be done on an EB Mustang with a tune, new down-pipe and a few other mods... A fully loaded vehicle, all the trimmings (cooled / heated seats, remote start, sync-3, track apps, track and sport+ modes) in a great looking vehicle pulling down 300 hp, tune-able to who knows what, all under $30k and gets 30 mpg's (actual mpg's I got from Phoenix to Flagstaff). What isn't to love?

"Not sure what changed" - a lot! Computer designed engines for maximum power and fuel efficiency, direct injection, software driven variables, sensors, switching sensors for fuel, oxygen, etc.., ports for computers software variable tuning, also giving more variables to the drivers. What is direct fuel injection and how is it different from regular fuel injection?

View source #3 - the proof is in the pudding!

Sources:
1.) https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
2.) https://en.wikipedia.org/####/Horsepower
3.) American Muscle EB Mustang & BAMA Tune Dyno testing and track times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0iR59nRue0
4.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqbaORCv2Q


Hope all this helps, happy motoring!

Wow, that was a long and very detailed explanation, thank you. I still say many of the new engines don't perform like they should given the numbers they are claiming. Maybe it's more of a poor power or torque curve, I dunno. I do know that the new NA V6s in all the pickups are the most anemic engines I've ever driven/ridden in and they are all rated higher than most of the older V8s from the past. I know this thread is about the Mustang, so maybe that's the difference, car vs truck. I have heard good things about the EB Mustangs and the 2.7 is actually a decent truck engine as well, as long as you don't do a lot of heavy towing with it.

I think the OP would be happy with his decision if he ends up going for the new Mustang.

 

[LSNAutoDetailingLSNAutoDetailing is verified member.]

Wow, that was a long and very detailed explanation, thank you. I still say many of the new engines don't perform like they should given the numbers they are claiming. Maybe it's more of a poor power or torque curve, I dunno. I do know that the new NA V6s in all the pickups are the most anemic engines I've ever driven/ridden in and they are all rated higher than most of the older V8s from the past. I know this thread is about the Mustang, so maybe that's the difference, car vs truck. I have heard good things about the EB Mustangs and the 2.7 is actually a decent truck engine as well, as long as you don't do a lot of heavy towing with it.

I think the OP would be happy with his decision if he ends up going for the new Mustang.

Thanks, I was hoping you didn't think I was being harsh.. I wanted to get the info out because I saw numbers in the 1972/3 Camaro Z-28's go from like 360 to when my older brother got his 74 Z to 245 net. As a young kid (13) and car enthusiast, I scratched my head and wondered what the heck was going on. I spoke to a few mechanics and picked up some hot-rod mag's that explained the Gross vs. Net ratings. (way before the internet).

The engine in the Mustang is a 2.3 Liter and it's stats from Ford are 310 hp and 320 ft lb torque. In 2018 the HP number will remain the same, but the torque will go to 340. Keep in mind, I owned an 89 5.0 LX which I bought new in 1989... My first brand new car. That had 225 hp and 290 flt pounds of torque. On a rental EB Mustang (not mine...) I power punched it darn good, got pinned to the seat and had an exhilarating ride. Now done with modern suspension, independent rear suspension (first time in a non Shelby mustang)! For 2018, the EB has now got "Burn-out Mode" or "Line-Lock", all glass cockpit, an electronically enhanced exhaust and 10 Speed auto transmission. Line Lock sounds fun, but I don't know why I would want to burn the $$$ of rubber just to impress friends.

If you haven't taken a modern vehicle out for a spin recently, go to your favorite rental shop and plop some money down on a Hemi Charger for a day, or a Mustang GT 5.0 2018 numbers for the GT will be 464 HP!!!! The most powerful production (non Shelby) mustang ever made.

There are those that have claimed issues with the EB's but they have put ridiculous aftermarket tunes on them. I think I saw on American Muscle that Chip Foose got up to 1000 hp on his EB Mustang with his own aftermarket parts. Of course with Chip, not much in the car was probably original. Ford Racing knew folks were going to do this, thus they now offer their own tune and kit, which is warrantied and maintains the factory warranty.

If I sound like I'm all for the EB Mustang, I most certainly am. The v6 is gone, and it's not a mistake they did that. The EB Mustang is sold world-wide. First time for a Mustang! It's a wonderful car, with tons of features and loads of power. I compared it against a Merc CLA250 and I have to say for more than 1/2 the price, the Mustang won hands down.

 

[hogie]

Another comparison to old vs new is car weights. Sure we have way more horsepower than we did in the 60's on even simple grocery getters and mommy mobiles. However, safety/convenience features have pumped up the weight tremendously. For instance, my mustang weighs 3700 lbs (nearly as much as my 62 F100 ((very very slow)). A 65 mustang is around 2700 lbs.