REVan Interviews Ed Krenz, Mustang lead engineer, about 2024 Dark Horse Mustang

[saleen367]

Wasn't it previously reported that the 24 EcoBoost motor is "all-new" yet this article is saying that its "carryover"

They are new versions of the same engine. Its talked about here - https://fordauthority.com/2022/10/2024-ford-mustang-debuts-new-2-3l-ecoboost-engine/
It could be a marketing ploy to get more DH orders. I really don't know.

Sponsored

 

[93-Oct Mayne]

This would be an absolute no-go for me. If I have to hear people with unmodified 2018 GTs bragging about 10 extra HP I'm out

 

[Schwerin]

Some interesting soundbites:

So, we know Dark Horse is "at least 500hp".......and the GT is "480hp plus". Well, Ed states one of the GT's competitors has 485hp and he doesn't like to be second

So, I take this to mean the GT will be at least 485HP, making it less impressive to say the DH to 500. I'm really hoping that numbers very under rated, as at this point I don't think even 525 would really impress me for how much the DH will cost.

 

[93-Oct Mayne]

480 for the GT and 510 for the DH would be reasonable to me

 

[Schwerin]

I don't see how that could be true as it contradicts what Ford themselves already said publicly.

 

[Dub347sbf]

This would be an absolute no-go for me. If I have to hear people with unmodified 2018 GTs bragging about 10 extra HP I'm out

Well, we are already hearing about how tuned 2021s have more power

So my Tuned 21 Mach 1 will have more HP than the Dark Horse.... SWEET!

 

[mountainman]

So, the new intake system is to….save 1 mpg? This doesn’t make sense to me.

But I do agree with the OP - we should be thankful to have it at all.

 

[Gogoggansgo]

I call horseshit on this article.

So do i because the big CHEIF said 480hp lol

 

[Rocktop77]

Yeah I tend to believe what Ford said at the release over any article. Doesnt look great to have a next gen car make less hp than an 18 GT and I think they know that. Also the comment he made about beating the competitor that’s at 485, which I assume he’s talking about the challenger, makes me thing it’ll be like 486

 

[OppoLock]

I call horseshit on this article.

I don't see how that could be true as it contradicts what Ford themselves already said publicly.

Let’s not be too hasty; Ford Authority’s sources are, to quote their article, “sources familiar with the matter.”

So it must be totally credible and not at all a shitpost for clicks.

 

[saleen367]

Ford has been known in the past to underrate their advertised HP numbers for insurance purposes. Is this the case here or would it be to place a HP cushion between their DH and GT? I believe the later because unless people need forged connecting rods for power adders, why get the DH for a significant price increase? I personally don't see why they would stick with 450, but I also don't see it being 490 either if the DH is just north of 500. 15 HP is hardly noticeable to the seat of the pants.

 

[IceGamer]

Ford has been known in the past to underrate their advertised HP numbers for insurance purposes. Is this the case here or would it be to place a HP cushion between their DH and GT? I believe the later because unless people need forged connecting rods for power adders, why get the DH for a significant price increase? I personally don't see why they would stick with 450, but I also don't see it being 490 either if the DH is just north of 500. 15 HP is hardly noticeable to the seat of the pants.

I keep hearing that here on the forum but I think it’s hardly ever the case. Just google some stock dyno tests. Yeah, I know, every dyno is different on any given day but the vast majority of videos paint a crystal clear picture: a 18 stock GT makes about 390-420 hp…
So where is this coming from that ‘Ford underrates their cars’? BMW does but Ford does not, at least not the current Mustang GT. It makes around 410hp on average and runs 0-100 in roughly 4.6 seconds… That’s not slow but far away from what you would expect from a 466hp car in 2022… It is however, what one could expect from a ~400hp car…

Anyhow, 450hp would be a huge let down although I’m pretty sure we’ll see 450, 460 at best here in Europe. For 60-70K I would rather go the distance and buy a C8 instead. Only problem is that that car is less of a daily driver and much tighter inside.

 

[Twin Turbo]

I suspect the '99 Cobra is why Ford would never over rate a Mustang's HP figure again.

If you don't know the backstory.......

The new 1999 Cobra had an upgraded 4.6 L DOHC V8 engine rated at 320 hp (239 kW) and 317 lb⋅ft (430 N⋅m) of torque. However, when the new 1999 Cobras were put through their paces by their new owners, it was revealed that 0-60 mph times were slower than a comparably-equipped 1998 model, and dyno tests suggested that the advertised power output was closer to 285 hp (213 kW), even though Ford claimed that the engine was outputting 15 hp more than the 1998 Cobra engine. Due to this outcry, on August 6, 1999, Ford halted the sales of all unsold 1999 Cobras on dealership lots and recalled all 1999 Cobras that had been sold. Ford replaced the intake manifold, certain computer components, and the exhaust system from the catalytic converters to the tailpipes to achieve a "true" 320 hp at the crankshaft

 

[IceGamer]

I suspect the '99 Cobra is why Ford would never over rate a Mustang's HP figure again.

If you don't know the backstory.......

The new 1999 Cobra had an upgraded 4.6 L DOHC V8 engine rated at 320 hp (239 kW) and 317 lb⋅ft (430 N⋅m) of torque. However, when the new 1999 Cobras were put through their paces by their new owners, it was revealed that 0-60 mph times were slower than a comparably-equipped 1998 model, and dyno tests suggested that the advertised power output was closer to 285 hp (213 kW), even though Ford claimed that the engine was outputting 15 hp more than the 1998 Cobra engine. Due to this outcry, on August 6, 1999, Ford halted the sales of all unsold 1999 Cobras on dealership lots and recalled all 1999 Cobras that had been sold. Ford replaced the intake manifold, certain computer components, and the exhaust system from the catalytic converters to the tailpipes to achieve a "true" 320 hp at the crankshaft

Interesting story but I don’t see any outcry these days even if your car is tested at a much lower power output. “That’s within the range” is the answer one always gets…

I don’t owe a GT but a quick Google ‘research’ implies that the GT is vastly overrated. There might be some GTs out there that actually deliver what was advertised but in general the data suggests otherwise. Same with the 0-100/62 numbers…. On average it’s somewhat in the mid 4 seconds.

 

[zstanny]

Dyno tests have a WIDE variance, and really should only be used as a tool. It's your reference point. From there, you do something like headers, tune, E85, and dyno again to make sure you've picked up about what you should. Of course, your car should produce a reasonable HP (wheel) compared to the advertised HP (crank), depending on RWD, FWD, AWD. If you've got 25% loss on a RWD car then sure, bring that to the OEM's attention.

0-60 times have variance as well, not as much as dyno runs, but still a significant amount. The magazine 0-60 times are the best the OEM got, in the best of scenarios with everything controlled that they could.

Interesting story but I don’t see any outcry these days even if your car is tested at a much lower power output. “That’s within the range” is the answer one always gets…

I don’t owe a GT but a quick Google ‘research’ implies that the GT is vastly overrated. There might be some GTs out there that actually deliver what was advertised but in general the data suggests otherwise. Same with the 0-100/62 numbers…. On average it’s somewhat in the mid 4 seconds.

Sponsored