RE: Mustang Performance Pack launched with 330hp

RE: Mustang Performance Pack launched with 330hp

Monday 15th April

Mustang Performance Pack launched with 330hp

New uprated Ecoboost engine is claimed as the most powerful yet produced by a US manufacturer 



Ford has created a more sporting version of its 2.3-litre Mustang with the addition of a Performance Package that unlocks more power and adds higher performance parts to the Ecoboost model. Confirmed for America and – we hope – potentially headed to Europe at a later date, the uprated car produces 330hp, an improvement of 20hp, which closes the gap somewhat to the headlining V8 and creates the most potent four-cylinder car made by an American manufacturer (although, to put that into context, it falls well short of the output of Porsche’s 366hp flat-four 718 GTS). 

But Ford says that the engine’s increased elasticity, not the growth in peak output, is the most significant improvement. Maximum torque remains 350lb ft, but it’s now available from 2,500rpm to 5,300rpm, which is 40 per cent longer than before. Peak horsepower is also now produced right up to the 6,500rpm redline, so while no exact straight-line performance figures have been provided (Ford says 0-60mph takes around 4.5 seconds), the revamped 2.3 should offer far more rewarding performance. It’s available with the six-speed manual or 10-speed auto, as before.


The Performance Package upgrade also brings chassis changes, including strut brace and anti-roll bars, four-pot brake calipers and the retuned stability control system of the V8 Mustang GT. The rear wheels drive through a limited-slip differential and the car also rides on 19-inch alloys wrapped in 255-width boots. The chassis can be upgraded further with the optional Handling Package, which brings magnetically-controlled damping, Torsen LSD and 265-width Pirelli P-Zero Corsas. There’s also a thicker rear anti-roll bar to further tighten up the back end. 

To signal its enhancements, the exterior gets a few additions, including a larger front splitter, a bonnet intake and a new rear spoiler. But by and large, the main changes are reserved for what lies beneath, which is fine by us. So while it won’t make all the lovely noises of the V8 model, the lighter EcoBoost should go as good as it looks. Here’s hoping the bosses give it the green light for Europe…


 







Author
Discussion

Peanus

Original Poster:

127 posts

45 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Ford have always been very good at inventing new pointless benchmarks they can be first in.

Wills2

15,488 posts

115 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
There is just something wrong about a 2.3l Mustang needs the V8

eldar

12,159 posts

136 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
There is just something wrong about a 2.3l Mustang needs the V8



Indeed. The 2.3 sounds wrong. A bit like a boxer dog dressed in a frock.

DSC OFF

34 posts

1 month

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Four cylinder cars with 4 exhausts 'pipes' is just silly to me. not that the buying public will give

Dr Interceptor

5,280 posts

136 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Nice colour though thumbup
Advertisement

aeropilot

17,507 posts

167 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
There is just something wrong about a 2.3l Mustang needs the V8
Thats what they said back in 1974 when Ford launched this, err, thing.....the Mustang II........ and with a 2.3L four cyclinder engine.


Wills2

15,488 posts

115 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
Wills2 said:
There is just something wrong about a 2.3l Mustang needs the V8
Thats what they said back in 1974 when Ford launched this, err, thing.....the Mustang II........ and with a 2.3L four cyclinder engine.

Wrong then as well.

Turbobanana

1,287 posts

141 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Interesting to see how the manual vs auto thing has changed over the years.

Old US autos often had 2 speeds, manuals 3.
Then 4 speed manuals became the norm, 3 for auto.
5 speed manuals then became the thing, with maybe 4 for auto.
Now the manual has 6, the auto 10.

Would I buy a 4-pot Mustang? Hell no, I'd need the V8 smile

aeropilot

17,507 posts

167 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
Wrong then as well.
T'was indeed.

Wills2

15,488 posts

115 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
Wills2 said:
Wrong then as well.
T'was indeed.
I really do like the Mustang it's great that they sell them here now always an event when you see/hear one. The 350R (I think) they get in the US sounds incredible with its flat plane crank I heard one on full chat one year in LA incredible noise.





donkmeister

1,496 posts

40 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Most powerful 4-cylinder car made by a particular national co of a large multinational...

Counting the multitude of A-class body styles as one car and the same for the Volvo as S60/v60.. I can think of the following 4-cylinder cars that are more powerful, and I think they're all 2.0.

Mercedes A45
Volvo V60 polestar
Ford Focus RS mk3 (but it's the same manufacturer!)
Mitsubishi FQ360-and-up
Porsche Boxster as per article...

Edited by donkmeister on Monday 15th April 14:57

MX6

4,032 posts

153 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
I really like the look of these Mustang's. Obviously a V8 would be preferable, but this 4 pot seems decent with that kind of power, and with presumably lower purchase price and running costs makes sence as a base engine spec. I wouldn't want the 2.3 badges on it though...

J4CKO

26,868 posts

140 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
MX6 said:
I really like the look of these Mustang's. Obviously a V8 would be preferable, but this 4 pot seems decent with that kind of power, and with presumably lower purchase price and running costs makes sence as a base engine spec. I wouldn't want the 2.3 badges on it though...
Yeah, its a give that we would all more than like go for the V8, but cant understand how much people turn their nose up at a pretty smart looking 330 bhp coupe that does sixty in 4.5 seconds.

It all gets a bit "Rain Man " in here "Mustangs Must have a V8".

Best go and buy some old woofer with a 140 bhp Rover V8 on instead.

donkmeister

1,496 posts

40 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
It all gets a bit "Rain Man " in here "Mustangs Must have a V8".

Best go and buy some old woofer with a 140 bhp Rover V8 on instead.
It is part of the recipe for a Pony though... A Mustang without a V8 is like a Mazda RX-x without a wankel, or an Impreza without a flat-4. If you asked me in the 80s I'd have added the RR 6-and-three-quarter and the Jaguar V12 to that list.

It will still be a decent enough car but it's missing something... A V8.

Alex_225

3,183 posts

141 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
I'm assuming that if it can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds with 330bhp and a manual box it's a pretty light car?

Personally it doesn't appeal to me very much, in my mind a muscle is just that with a V8. Whether historically one had a 2.3 in or not, it's what most of us have come to accept for a Mustang.

I'm intrigued it's as quick as claimed considering there are 500bhp albeit it older V8 cars that do 0-60 in similar times.

Stang5oh

27 posts

136 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
I picked up my mustang just over a month ago. The wife and I were looking for nearly 6 months and did our usual thing of visiting different dealers and seeing what they would throw at us to sweeten the deal.

We were talking about a 2.3 so the wife could use it as a daily but when it came to it, even she fell in love with the V8 noise and power. The one I bought has active exhaust as well so the noise can be tuned to what the situation requires.

I tried justifying the Ecoboost to myself, "European engine for a European mustang" "still 300Bhp" but it still never shook the whole feeling that the mustang would not be proper without the V8. 70% of UK Mustang buyers agree. And still being able to get 32mpg out of the V8 on a long run blows the whole fuel costs argument out of the water.

If I was offered the 2.3 performance or V8, it would still be V8 for me.

Fiesta1.0L

38 posts

38 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Always think of this when I think about that engine rattling around in a space made for a V8


scottygib553

69 posts

35 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
I don't find this new shape very nice from the front.

mac96

1,387 posts

83 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
Alex_225 said:
I'm assuming that if it can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds with 330bhp and a manual box it's a pretty light car?

Personally it doesn't appeal to me very much, in my mind a muscle is just that with a V8. Whether historically one had a 2.3 in or not, it's what most of us have come to accept for a Mustang.

I'm intrigued it's as quick as claimed considering there are 500bhp albeit it older V8 cars that do 0-60 in similar times.
Must be the automatic? It is quicker than a 2017 V8 Manual which has at least (depending on who you believe) 80bhp more, which would be remarkable even allowing for torque curve differences.

irocfan

18,803 posts

130 months

Monday 15th April
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
MX6 said:
I really like the look of these Mustang's. Obviously a V8 would be preferable, but this 4 pot seems decent with that kind of power, and with presumably lower purchase price and running costs makes sence as a base engine spec. I wouldn't want the 2.3 badges on it though...
Yeah, its a give that we would all more than like go for the V8, but cant understand how much people turn their nose up at a pretty smart looking 330 bhp coupe that does sixty in 4.5 seconds.

It all gets a bit "Rain Man " in here "Mustangs Must have a V8".

Best go and buy some old woofer with a 140 bhp Rover V8 on instead.
I understand your perspective but for me a pony/muscle car has to have the V8. I really wouldn't care if a 4-pot was the fastest car in the range I'd still want the 8 since, IMO, half the experience is the noise - not just the performance