It's an S197 V6 Mustang that he's got. I'm not sure what year it is, but it's definitely the V6 with a manual.
Does this fit if so? Taken from Wikipedia: This engine is also available in the Ford Mustang EcoBoost, with power figures of 310 hp (231 kW; 314 PS) @ 5500 rpm, 320 lb⋅ft (434 N⋅m) @ 3000 rpm. (I just realized it's before the 2015 model, so likely not.)
I guess I should have been more clear as to what an S197 is. This is an S197 (previous-gen) Mustang V6. It never had a turbo (EcoBoost) on any engine. This is an S550 (current-gen) Mustang, in EcoBoost trim. As for your whole "EcoBoost is only in the Mustang" stuff, I'll just say this: EcoBoost is just Ford's way of saying that a car has one turbocharger on an inline-three or inline-four (and no, the EcoBoost S550 'Stang/2017 Focus RS do NOT have twin turbochargers, as I've heard some people on the Internet say they do; they only have a single twin-scroll turbo) or a single/twin-turbo setup on a V6. Therefore, just because some Ford vehicles don't explicitly say that they have EcoBoost in their trim name does NOT mean that they don't have EcoBoost. Nothing could be farther from the truth; why, the 2017 Ford Raptor has an EcoBoost V6 (as does the '17 GT supercar and quite a few of their SUVs), and a lot of Fords have EcoBoost inline-fours as options, if not as standard (like in the Fiesta ST/Focus ST).
I already noticed it isn't the 6th gen after "Wikipediaing" it. Also, I already got told that the Ecoboost is plenty of Fords now, although that does describe about the Ecoboost in every Ford, or just the engine in general.
Deep into the Seriously Uncool zone. Displacement downsizing is uncool anyway; having "eco" in the name just makes it worse. Also a 3-cylinder engine in a compact car, especially a modern one that weighs 3000 pounds, is just wrong. I miss the days when you'd have an NA inline four in the 2-liter range (but not necessarily exactly 2 liters) and then maybe a bigger four, a turbo version of the same four, or even a V6 above that, all in a car that weighed somewhere in the 2300-2700 pound range.
Nope. Focus and mondeo have both had the 1.0 ecoboost. Non ST fiestas have had the 1.0 ecoboost. The 2018 fiesta ST gets a new 1.5 ecoboost --- Post updated --- Uncool: in the eyes of possibly the most backwards mofo living. Get back in the stone age road muggle
Before Ecoboost, it uses Ford's Cologne V6. 2006, so the first of the retro body style cars. Colored in Legend Lime Clear Coat Metallic, which was only available for the 2005/2006 model years. It was replaced with Grabber Orange Clear Coat Metallic in 2007 after poor sales numbers for Legend Lime (a tragedy, it's my favorite color ever put on a Mustang). I make 100 less horsepower and 80 less torque from about double the displacement (4 liters). But my car would be about 600-700 pounds lighter. 6.8 second 0-60 wasn't bad in 2006 from 6 cylinders. It'll hang with a WRX from the same time period.
Theres 11 engines holding the ecoboost moniker in total, and thats excluding occurences of the same engine having multiple states of tune such as the 1.0 ecoboost coming in 99, 123 and 138hp variations. Or the 3.5 litre ecoboost having 375, 400, 450 and 647hp versions depending on the F150 trim level or if its in a navigator or an expedition instead etc The 1.0 ecoboost may only be a 1 litre 3 cylinder. But thats impressive power. They can put out over 165 with mountunes off shelf package. And yet, its tiny, for a 1.0 its external dimensions are pretty small, its footprint fits within a sheet of A4 paper. Pretty god damn fucking reliable too, but it does have 2 shortcomings. Firstly, timing belt is oddly mounted and a pain in the arse to replace, though in torture testing holds up longer than that of most cars anyway. Secondly, the exhaust manifold is integrated to the head of the engine, no chance of making a custom manifold for a big turbo conversion without replacing the entire head of the engine, though I would not be surprised to see that happen. Exhaust manifold is done because it both reduces the size of the engine and allows incredibly short yet still equal length and very non restrictive headers directly into the turbocharger reducing its spool time considerably and also lowering the boost threshold
>Ticket for 39 over >Outran 2 G35s in a Sunbird (by hiding in traffic, but still) >Thinks automatic transmissions are evil >Road muggle Yeah, whatever. That engine's exhaust manifold design is muggley in and of itself. Also calling anything "eco" makes it automatically uncool. I'd like Ford's turbocharged engines a lot more if they called them something like "GT Turbo" and cranked the boost way up.
But more boost often = more lag. More lag = less drivability, less drivability = harder to drive in the city, harder to drive in the city most often = less buyers, less buyers = less money, less money often = bankruptcy. Of course, automatically calling a 450+ or 600+ horsepower twin-turbo V6 "EcoBoost" isn't really accurate, as that wouldn't be all that economical. (The GT gets about 14 MPG highway, or just two more MPG than the Lamborghini Aventador S, despite having half the cylinders.)
I know lag can be annoying around town, but I still feel like a turbo should not drive like an NA. You should hear it spool, hear the BOV, feel the boost start to kick up as you step down on the throttle. A car is a beast of burden; the best kind runs heavy on the "beast" part rather than treating driving as a "burden" to be lightened. But that seems to be the opposite of what Ford is going for. Instead, they actually fitted a device to make the engine sound more powerful so people wouldn't drive it too hard and negate the fuel economy gains - basically tricking people into driving like muggles. I'm sure there are people out there who really think that's a good thing, but as for me, I hate it when people in front of me accelerate economically.
And it’s only powertain option is the turbocharged 2.3l EcoBoost straight-4 with a 10 speed automatic. No Duratec and Duratorq for the usdm.
