Ecoboost Mustang

[dguy6789]

Like what?

Off the top of my the Accord has a nicer interior, a smoother and quieter ride, it retains value better, and you can give it wide open throttle every single day and it would still need maintenance less often than a leisurely driven Mustang. Those are the primary reasons I would choose an Accord V6 over a Mustang. I wouldn't buy it expecting it to beat a Mustang in a straight line.

The Mustang is primarily a car for people with the budget to get a Civic but want something fast in a straight line. Don't overplay it, it's not a Hellcat, it's slightly quicker than the Accord V6.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Off the top of my the Accord has a nicer interior

Objective Proof?

a smoother and quieter ride

As a family sedan should.

it retains value better

As a family sedan should.

and you can give it wide open throttle every single day and it would still need maintenance less often than a leisurely driven Mustang.

Completely unsubstantiated BS.

it's slightly quicker than the Accord V6.

It is faster 0-60, it is faster beyond that, it has better slalom speed and pull substantially more G's on the skidpad. For you to say the above shows just how biased you are. Your last statement is a complete joke.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I'm not sure why the accord coupe is even being compared to the ecoboost mustang. Okay it's nearly as quick in a straight line. Other than that they are completely different cars engineered from the beginning for entirely different purposes. I at no time even considered an accord coupe. I wanted a sports car. Period. I didn't want fwd again. Didn't want a family car suspension for sure. I wanted something cool. And imo I found tons more cool than an accord coupe would ever dream of having.

 

[Wuzup101]

Off the top of my the Accord has a nicer interior, a smoother and quieter ride, it retains value better, and you can give it wide open throttle every single day and it would still need maintenance less often than a leisurely driven Mustang. Those are the primary reasons I would choose an Accord V6 over a Mustang. I wouldn't buy it expecting it to beat a Mustang in a straight line.

The Mustang is primarily a car for people with the budget to get a Civic but want something fast in a straight line. Don't overplay it, it's not a Hellcat, it's slightly quicker than the Accord V6.

Interiors on the EX-L v6 and Mustang Premium are similar. Some may like the design of one or the other better; however, the quality is similar. The 2015 mustang interior is much nicer than the previous model.

I would assume that the Accord does have a smoother ride as it has the suspension of a family sedan. I haven't seen any actual data on interior sound for either car so I don't know. I've driven a 2015 premium GT and it was pretty damn quiet inside. I was a little disappointed that I couldn't hear more of the engine/exhaust.

Regarding maintenance costs, Edmunds puts the mustang GT premium at $4,242 over 5 years with the accord EX-L at $3,946 over 5 years. So it's $300 cheaper over $5 years... Also - mustangs are NOT expensive to work on in general. Edmunds didn't have statistics for the ecoboost trims up as of today.

Regarding holding value, Edmunds puts the EX-L between the V6 mustang and mustang GT as far as depreciation is concerned. $13,179 over 5 years for the V6 stang, $15,875 for the EX-L coupe, $17,143 for the GT, and $18,946 for the GT premium. I'd be willing to bet that when the eco boost premium figures are up it slots in VERY close to the EX-L coupe given their very similar base prices.

The problem is you described some GREAT traits of the Accord sedan (which is a great family sedan). When you go to the coupe version you make all the normal coupe sacrifices around not really having a functional back seat and gain NOTHING. You basically are just doing it for looks.

The Accord coupe is primarily a car for people that previously owned a Civic and now have a [slightly] larger budget and want something faster in a straight line but are too "cool" to buy the Accord sedan (or a true sports coupe from a number of different manufacturers). Don't overplay it, it's not a sports car, it's slightly quicker than the Civic Si but much less of a "sports coupe."

 

[Yuriman]

This isn't based on hard data, but I'd feel better about consistently abusing a NA engine than a boosted one, FWIW.

And yeah, these cars are priced similarly and have similar power, both have the option of a manual transmission and offer similar fuel economy. They'll probably be cross-shopped, but the driving characteristics will be very different and and apples-to-apples comparison can't be made. It's worth noting that the Accord coupe is 150lbs lighter, but has lower highway fuel economy, presumably due to the change in body shape.

 

[xSkyDrAx]

Off the top of my the Accord has a nicer interior, a smoother and quieter ride, it retains value better, and you can give it wide open throttle every single day and it would still need maintenance less often than a leisurely driven Mustang. Those are the primary reasons I would choose an Accord V6 over a Mustang. I wouldn't buy it expecting it to beat a Mustang in a straight line.

The Mustang is primarily a car for people with the budget to get a Civic but want something fast in a straight line. Don't overplay it, it's not a Hellcat, it's slightly quicker than the Accord V6.

I think this is the general consensus of what you're getting. Looking sporty is not enough to be sporty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tswmAObWJQY

 

[Pulsar]

There isn't a mustang I'd take over a new accord v6 coupe

If you freely admit that a Mustang is not what you'd ever be looking for in a car, why are you having this discussion other than to troll?

I mean, I'd never go buy a full size dodge sprinter van, and I'm not going to go tell them why a enclosed trailer is a better option.

Troll elsewhere.

 

[KentState]

Off the top of my the Accord has a nicer interior, a smoother and quieter ride, it retains value better, and you can give it wide open throttle every single day and it would still need maintenance less often than a leisurely driven Mustang. Those are the primary reasons I would choose an Accord V6 over a Mustang. I wouldn't buy it expecting it to beat a Mustang in a straight line.

The Mustang is primarily a car for people with the budget to get a Civic but want something fast in a straight line. Don't overplay it, it's not a Hellcat, it's slightly quicker than the Accord V6.

Come on, the Accord is the most play-it-safe appliance out there. If you are a fan of bland plastic interiors and lifeless driving feel then it's the perfect car. At least the Mustang is setup with IRS RWD, which together with the light weight I4 would make a much more engaging driving experience.

 

[pauldun170]

Interiors on the EX-L v6 and Mustang Premium are similar. Some may like the design of one or the other better; however, the quality is similar. The 2015 mustang interior is much nicer than the previous model.

I would assume that the Accord does have a smoother ride as it has the suspension of a family sedan. I haven't seen any actual data on interior sound for either car so I don't know. I've driven a 2015 premium GT and it was pretty damn quiet inside. I was a little disappointed that I couldn't hear more of the engine/exhaust.

Regarding maintenance costs, Edmunds puts the mustang GT premium at $4,242 over 5 years with the accord EX-L at $3,946 over 5 years. So it's $300 cheaper over $5 years... Also - mustangs are NOT expensive to work on in general. Edmunds didn't have statistics for the ecoboost trims up as of today.

Regarding holding value, Edmunds puts the EX-L between the V6 mustang and mustang GT as far as depreciation is concerned. $13,179 over 5 years for the V6 stang, $15,875 for the EX-L coupe, $17,143 for the GT, and $18,946 for the GT premium. I'd be willing to bet that when the eco boost premium figures are up it slots in VERY close to the EX-L coupe given their very similar base prices.

The problem is you described some GREAT traits of the Accord sedan (which is a great family sedan). When you go to the coupe version you make all the normal coupe sacrifices around not really having a functional back seat and gain NOTHING. You basically are just doing it for looks.

The Accord coupe is primarily a car for people that previously owned a Civic and now have a [slightly] larger budget and want something faster in a straight line but are too "cool" to buy the Accord sedan (or a true sports coupe from a number of different manufacturers). Don't overplay it, it's not a sports car, it's slightly quicker than the Civic Si but much less of a "sports coupe."

Since the comparison between the V8 Mustang vs Accord V6 was not a "apples to apples" here is alternative comparo

Mustang 3.7
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/mustang/2014/tco.html?style=200465251
5 year total - $3,899

Accord Coupe 3.5
http://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2014/tco.html?style=200487200
5 year total - $4,262

True delta reliability
http://www.truedelta.com/Ford-Mustang/reliability-92/vs-Accord-108

 

[uclaLabrat]

When I traded in my '12 GT I looked at a '15 GT, with a price take over 45k I laughed and walked away.

Is that for the vert? Cause I optioned out a gt premium with track package and Recaro seats for $ 38K through USAA

 

[exar333]

Come on, the Accord is the most play-it-safe appliance out there. If you are a fan of bland plastic interiors and lifeless driving feel then it's the perfect car. At least the Mustang is setup with IRS RWD, which together with the light weight I4 would make a much more engaging driving experience.

This.

The Accord is OK, but drives like your grandmother's old Buick. It is lifeless and boring. If someone thinks this car is 'engaging' I really pity the cars they drove before...seriously. The 2-door Accord is a worthless vehicle. Its the same size as the 4-door and less practical.

The Accord is a car to get from A to B, albeit a little more comfortable and 'sporty' than a Toyota. That's not saying much.

 

[pauldun170]

This.

The Accord is OK, but drives like your grandmother's old Buick. It is lifeless and boring. If someone thinks this car is 'engaging' I really pity the cars they drove before...seriously. The 2-door Accord is a worthless vehicle. Its the same size as the 4-door and less practical.

The Accord is a car to get from A to B, albeit a little more comfortable and 'sporty' than a Toyota. That's not saying much.

I'm going to jump in and say that the Accord EX-L coupe, Specifically the V6 MT is not "worthless".
Its the only way to get a manual transmission with the V6 in the accord.
Its Honda's fastest car, and overall its a quick car.
While I would much prefer other cars, I will give Honda credit on the Accord coupe with the V6 and MT. Its pretty good car. While there are better cars out there for track work, EX-L is an excellent street car to run up through the gears and toss into the twisties.

 

[Elganja]

congrats on the new car OP... any aftermarket for the ecoboost cars? curious what a chip and tune would do for it (upping the boost and tuning)

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Yeah there is an aftermarket. I'm kinda waiting and doing more research before jumping in. I saw that just a tune alone would get it to 340hp 380tq.

 

[Midwayman]

Yeah there is an aftermarket. I'm kinda waiting and doing more research before jumping in. I saw that just a tune alone would get it to 340hp 380tq.

I'm sure there will be some serious development for the ecoboost cars. I feel like they probably held back so they don't eat into the GT sales.

 

[maluckey]

Good choice of Mustang OP!!!

Now, I'm not a swami, and have no claims to see the future...but...in this case, I see turbo upgrade in the VERY near future for the new Mustangs!

The thing is that I seriously see 400HP from the new Mustang 4 cylinder as "common" in just a few years.

M

 

[Scarpozzi]

What is there to break on ecoboost anyhow? The only negatives I read about them was on the F150 line from 2009 or 2010 when they first came out...some of them started getting lower mpg with no solid reason why. I don't recall if they ever got to the root cause, but all ecoboost does is combine direct injection with turbo. A few relays + the computer are fine tuning the hp vs mpg.....most cars have done that for years using data from the MAF sensor & O2 sensors...this is just slightly different in theory.

OP...nice car, but you're going to be kicking yourself for not getting the 4 door model. You'll want that extra space....trust me.

 

[satyajitmenon]

OP...nice car, but you're going to be kicking yourself for not getting the 4 door model. You'll want that extra space....trust me.

Huh?

 

[thomsbrain]

I think if I could afford to buy a new car every year, I'd save up for two years and get a car that doesn't suck.

 

[compman25]

I think if I could afford to buy a new car every year, I'd save up for two years and get a car that doesn't suck.

Like a soulless, boring, life sucking, ball stealing Honda?

 

[Midwayman]

Like a soulless, boring, life sucking, ball stealing Honda?

 

[exar333]

Like a soulless, boring, life sucking, ball stealing Honda?

Sadly.

Modern Honda's are not the 90's Hondas we remember fondly.

 

[Imported]

Nice Mustang. Love the new look a lot. Sometimes I wish I waited a few months when I got my BMW to test drive the Mustang. I'll just have to wait another 2 years.

 

[MagickMan]

There isn't a mustang I'd take over a new accord v6 coupe

Yuck. :\

 

[LevelSea]

lolaccord