2015 Mustang Ecoboost

[gus6464]

Just got back from a test drive and I was very impressed. Very smooth and the engine is quite good. Couldn't feel any turbo lag. Felt maybe it could do with another 50 horses but that's nothing a tune can't fix. The interior does not look cheap like prior Fords and they have really stepped up their game.

Even my buddy who went with me and has Z ended up being impressed and he dislikes American cars quite a bit.

I know it's not a V8 sacrilege on a Mustang, blah blah but the ecoboost is putting out more horses than last gen's V8 and more torque.

I will be trying to convince my wife all week to put in an order for a magnetic with ecoboost performance package. Current lead time on special orders is 13 weeks.

 

[Insomniator]

Whats the MPG vs the V8?

I dunno, Mustang and 'ecoboost' just sounds stupid even if it is more powerful then previous V8's.

 

[gus6464]

Whats the MPG vs the V8?

I dunno, Mustang and 'ecoboost' just sounds stupid even if it is more powerful then previous V8's.

32mpg vs 22 on V8.

 

[LTC8K6]

Whats the MPG vs the V8?

I dunno, Mustang and 'ecoboost' just sounds stupid even if it is more powerful then previous V8's.

EPA numbers:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...ear2=2015&make=Ford&model=Mustang&srchtyp=ymm

 

[LTC8K6]

Now, about the fuel economy. When you put a small turbo engine into a heavy car, the savings are generally not that grand. Ask a Fisker owner if you can find one. We saw 19 mpg overall, and you can probably expect low-to-mid-20s if you like to use your car as anything other than a nun’s taxi. Don’t be surprised if a few C7 Corvette owners snicker at you at the car show. They can often approach 30 mpg with their cars (while driving like nuns) or match your economy while also taking a few 455-hp licks of the underhood candy. The EPA says this Ford can achieve 32 mpg on the highway, though, for what it’s worth.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-automatic-test-review

 

[KentState]

Didn't Ford get in trouble for not making the MPG numbers on other Ecoboost vehicles in real world use?

 

[Yuriman]

6.2 C7 Corvette: 17 / 29, 455HP

2.3 Ecoboost Mustang: 21 / 32, 310HP


Found this to be somewhat interesting:

The new Corvette has the latest iteration of a long-utilized but little-publicized technology that forces the driver to shift from first gear to fourth gear except under hard driving conditions.

Known as CAGS, or Computer Aided Gear Selection, the system locks the driver out of second and third gears after starting in first in order to eke out a bit more fuel economy from its powerful V8 and avoid the "gas guzzler" tax.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/20/2015-corvette-rated-29-mpg-eight-speed-automatic/

Can anyone who owns one confirm?

The Corvette has some other tricks to help keep fuel consumption down such as taller gearing and cylinder deactivation.

Anywho, the Mustang is 2-500lbs heavier depending on your configuration, and is also both a taller and wider car, presenting more frontal area to the wind. Given that the Corvette is only an i4 when cruising on the highway to the Mustang's 6 cylinders, I'm impressed it gets the economy it does.

Honestly, I rather like where Ford is going with the 'stang. Most who buy them use them as family haulers and commuter cars, and this is a great option for them. For everyone else, handling has improved recently and you still have larger non-turbo engine choices if you want to slap one on yourself.

 

[franksta]

6.2 C7 Corvette: 17 / 29, 455HP

2.3 Ecoboost Mustang: 21 / 32, 310HP


Found this to be somewhat interesting:


http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/20/2015-corvette-rated-29-mpg-eight-speed-automatic/

Can anyone who owns one confirm?

The Corvette has some other tricks to help keep fuel consumption down such as taller gearing and cylinder deactivation.

That's been a "feature" since 4th gen F-body if I'm remembering correctly.

 

[RGN]

My '04 GTO had CAGS. I usually shifted from 1st to 3rd to 5th and drove it like a 3 speed, so I rarely noticed it.

 

[soccerballtux]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-automatic-test-review

and the corvette is a totally different market.

 

[soccerballtux]

Didn't Ford get in trouble for not making the MPG numbers on other Ecoboost vehicles in real world use?

28 is still good enough IMO

 

[KentState]

28 is still good enough IMO

C&D saw 19mpg average and said to expect low 20's. Much different from 28 or 32, especially when paying for premium.

 

[Viper GTS]

6.2 C7 Corvette: 17 / 29, 455HP

2.3 Ecoboost Mustang: 21 / 32, 310HP


Found this to be somewhat interesting:


http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/20/2015-corvette-rated-29-mpg-eight-speed-automatic/

Can anyone who owns one confirm?

The Corvette has some other tricks to help keep fuel consumption down such as taller gearing and cylinder deactivation.

Anywho, the Mustang is 2-500lbs heavier depending on your configuration, and is also both a taller and wider car, presenting more frontal area to the wind. Given that the Corvette is only an i4 when cruising on the highway to the Mustang's 6 cylinders, I'm impressed it gets the economy it does.

Honestly, I rather like where Ford is going with the 'stang. Most who buy them use them as family haulers and commuter cars, and this is a great option for them. For everyone else, handling has improved recently and you still have larger non-turbo engine choices if you want to slap one on yourself.

The 1-4 skip shift has been around for ages to 'optimize' for the EPA test. Corvette, Viper, Camaro, etc all have had it at one point or another.

Easily defeatable thankfully.

Viper GTS

 

[videogames101]

I've never seen a vehicle get worse than EPA numbers. Hell, my current '02 S60 is rated for 26 mpg highway and I usually average 35 mpg. And not from trying to save gas either, that's going 80mph up and down I-65...

Is there a recent trend of under-performing on promised mpg? Never owned anything newer than my current vehicle.

On-topic, nice choice OP!

 

[Wuzup101]

6.2 C7 Corvette: 17 / 29, 455HP

2.3 Ecoboost Mustang: 21 / 32, 310HP


Found this to be somewhat interesting:


http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/20/2015-corvette-rated-29-mpg-eight-speed-automatic/

Can anyone who owns one confirm?

The Corvette has some other tricks to help keep fuel consumption down such as taller gearing and cylinder deactivation.

Anywho, the Mustang is 2-500lbs heavier depending on your configuration, and is also both a taller and wider car, presenting more frontal area to the wind. Given that the Corvette is only an i4 when cruising on the highway to the Mustang's 6 cylinders, I'm impressed it gets the economy it does.

Honestly, I rather like where Ford is going with the 'stang. Most who buy them use them as family haulers and commuter cars, and this is a great option for them. For everyone else, handling has improved recently and you still have larger non-turbo engine choices if you want to slap one on yourself.

The CAGS on the new vette seems to be even less intrusive than on the C6. I've had it active ~2 times in the first 1500 miles on mine... and it was when I was pulling out REALLY slowly to make sure that I didn't scrape on a driveway. You definitely don't have to be pushing it to have CAGS not push you into 4th... It was similar on my roomate's Z06 (C6) but I believe the trigger speed cutoff is like 5mph lower on the C7 (something like 19mph c7 vs 24mph c6). I almost never would even try to shift out of first at <19mph.

 

[KentState]

I've never seen a vehicle get worse than EPA numbers. Hell, my current '02 S60 is rated for 26 mpg highway and I usually average 35 mpg. And not from trying to save gas either, that's going 80mph up and down I-65...

Is there a recent trend of under-performing on promised mpg? Never owned anything newer than my current vehicle.

On-topic, nice choice OP!

Some recent examples.

Ford:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/business/ford-lowers-fuel-economy-ratings-on-some-of-its-cars.html

Kia:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/03/kia-hyundai-mpg-epa/18410431/

I also know that the Chevy Equinox was the topic of discussion when it first came out. The Ecoboost engines have also been a topic of discussion, but not sure if anything materialized. My biggest issue with the Mustang Ecoboost is why pretend that gas mileage is important when you are 1) pay more for premium 2) have to drive conservatively to achieve the numbers which is counter intuitive to buying a sporty car.

 

[angminas]

Can anyone who owns one confirm?

I remember reading about this about 15 years ago. You just get it deactivated.

 

[Yuriman]

My biggest issue with the Mustang Ecoboost is why pretend that gas mileage is important when you are 1) pay more for premium 2) have to drive conservatively to achieve the numbers which is counter intuitive to buying a sporty car.

MPG matters quite a bit to most who aren't wealthy whether they know it or not, and regardless of how they intend to drive it. If you keep a car for its entire lifetime (let's say 200,000 miles), the difference between 20mpg and 30mpg in cost of ownership is nearly $7,000 at $3.50 per gallon.

If the non-Ecoboost 'stang gets closer to 16mpg real-world and the Ecoboost gets 24, the difference is actually larger, at nearly $15,000, given the same 50% difference. That's 2/3 the price of a new car. I'd love for future-self to suddenly have 15 grand in his pocket because of a choice present-self made.

Sporty cars tend to be driven harder than econoboxes, granted, but EPA figures *should* ideally be normalized for driving style. The question should then be, in real world conditions, how much more efficient is the Ecoboost engine, really? Perhaps we're seeing a limitation of the EPA's testing methodologies, or perhaps regular mustangs tend to get the same percentage under EPA as the Ecoboost version does, it just looks like less because you're working with smaller numbers.

 

[KentState]

MPG matters quite a bit to most who aren't wealthy whether they know it or not, and regardless of how they intend to drive it. If you keep a car for its entire lifetime (let's say 200,000 miles), the difference between 20mpg and 30mpg in cost of ownership is nearly $7,000 at $3.50 per gallon.

If the non-Ecoboost 'stang gets closer to 16mpg real-world and the Ecoboost gets 24, the difference is actually larger, at nearly $15,000, given the same 50% difference. That's 2/3 the price of a new car. I'd love for future-self to suddenly have 15 grand in his pocket because of a choice present-self made.

Sporty cars tend to be driven harder than econoboxes, granted, but EPA figures *should* ideally be normalized for driving style. The question should then be, in real world conditions, how much more efficient is the Ecoboost engine, really? Perhaps we're seeing a limitation of the EPA's testing methodologies, or perhaps regular mustangs tend to get the same percentage under EPA as the Ecoboost version does, it just looks like less because you're working with smaller numbers.

If you can't afford $400 a year in gas on a sporty car, then you are looking at the wrong car. If MPG really matters that much, then priorities shouldn't be a Mustang, but rather something more practical. BTW, it would take 16 years at 12k a year to hit 200k.

 

[tweakmonkey]

Turbos are fun.

Also isn't the ecoboost about $7000 cheaper than the v8? It weighs a little less too, and could still pickup a big power gain from mods.

 

[Yuriman]

If you can't afford $400 a year in gas on a sporty car, then you are looking at the wrong car. If MPG really matters that much, then priorities shouldn't be a Mustang, but rather something more practical. BTW, it would take 16 years at 12k a year to hit 200k.

Closer to $1000, and how many people do you know who buy cars that are rather out of their means? Perhaps I just live in a particularly idiotic area, but I see college students delivering pizza in F250's.

Being better on gas makes a Mustang within the means of quite a few more people.

 

[HitAnyKey]

I don't mind the Turbo, just not a fan of the name. While I find it an interesting option I would much prefer a V8. If I wanted a daily driver with minimal fuss and easy maintenance, I would go with a V6. Less to break and worry about long term. Especially if I wanted to buy a slightly used one.

From a Marketing perspective, they should bring back the Ford Capri with ONLY this motor (and call it a Turbo4 instead of Ecoboost) and trim off 500 lbs. It eliminates the V8 comparison argument and gives the tuner/import crowd an interesting option.

 

[tweakmonkey]

I have the ecoboost 1.6 in my fiesta st and it's incredible. Makes more power at most rpms than my old mustang gts (I've had 5 1984-1999). I bet the 2.3 is great.

 

[IGemini]

If you can't afford $400 a year in gas on a sporty car, then you are looking at the wrong car. If MPG really matters that much, then priorities shouldn't be a Mustang, but rather something more practical. BTW, it would take 16 years at 12k a year to hit 200k.

There aren't many auto makers out there these days that market a car model solely at those with expendable income who view sports cars as just a "toy." V6 (and I4T, in this case) sports cars are made to be fun everyday drivers and are more affordable, all while producing power on par or better than the muscle cars of yesteryear that people pine over. MSRP for these start out comparable to their mid-size family cars (depending on the maker), but not everyone needs those. This allows for more sales.

It's not a difficult concept, but I always found it funny that V8 blowhards are the only ones who can still get their car but feel the need to bemoan both how a company offers another option AND what other people do with their money. It's tantamount to hating change for the sake of hating change.

 

[KentState]

There aren't many auto makers out there these days that market a car model solely at those with expendable income who view sports cars as just a "toy." V6 (and I4T, in this case) sports cars are made to be fun everyday drivers and are more affordable, all while producing power on par or better than the muscle cars of yesteryear that people pine over. MSRP for these start out comparable to their mid-size family cars (depending on the maker), but not everyone needs those. This allows for more sales.

It's not a difficult concept, but I always found it funny that V8 blowhards are the only ones who can still get their car but feel the need to bemoan both how a company offers another option AND what other people do with their money. It's tantamount to hating change for the sake of hating change.

That's not my point. I find it funny that blowhards in general try to twist a point to fit their own agenda.

My point is that an Ecoboost engine not driven for fuel economy will not get you anywhere close to the EPA numbers. Someone buying a Mustang will not be hypermiling or taking it easy, otherwise their interest would probably be somewhere else. I'm not putting down Ford or what people do with their money, but I guess you would rather turn it into an argument and put words into my mouth.