2016 Mustang GT vs EB, which one to buy?

[drabon74]

. The problem with the eco boost engine is its too small for a car this size. A 2.7 would be the sweet spot. I drove both and was turned off immediately by the lack of grunt in the eco4. There is a mid 50s lady at my gym who has the eco and loves it. It has all the style with better gas mileage, cheaper insurance, and more performance than she will ever use. Depends on your needs / desires

Sponsored

 

[GJarrett]

A week or so ago I had the FP tune installed on my Ecoboost; it's the tune they should have gone ahead and provided with it stock. $500 really woke it up. No, it's not 435 hp, but it is very strong and a great auto.

I think many here may be too young to recall that it was not that long ago that V8 GTs had 215 hp. Only six years ago 2010 models had 315 hp and 325 lb-ft torque. Whether 215 hp or 315 hp the mpg stayed consistent around the 16/24 mpg city/hwy range.

This Ecoboost has 335 hp and 390 lb-ft; I'm averaging 25+ mpg combined and hwy mileage about 33 mpg - with better handling and more hp & torque than GTs from not long ago. The torque comes on quickly at low rpm and has plenty of grunt for me. It's not a slow car and it's not an inferior choice, depending on your needs and wants.

 

[Cobra Jet]

I don't know where some of you are coming off by saying the EB has "no grunt".

I've owned Mustangs since the late 80's, 95% were all 5.0 or "V8" variety, including (2) original SVO's.

Unless my EB is an anomaly from those who say they HAVE driven an EB, mine has A LOT of grunt and can give most V8's a run for their money - that's in both the normal drive mode and Sport mode.

I believe most who are trashing the EB either never really drove one - not putzed around @ 35mph in a residential zone - I mean REALLY driven one on an open highway where it counts and made the horse RUN.

Also (2) fun facts for those 4cyl haters:

1) The original Mustang, the FIRST Mustang to have been built and driven was a 4cyl. Sure it wasn't the iconic final design, but it was in fact THE Mustang that put ALL of us on the map for the last 50yrs.

2) The 1984 Mustang SVO (4cyl turbo) pioneered MANY "Mustang firsts" that were eventually used in later production Mustangs:
A) SVO Team which evolved into Ford Performance of today. Without the SVO Team, the SVT Cobras and their subsequent "Ford Shelby" or Cobra Jets of today would not exist.
B) SVO, to SVE, to SVT
C) Use of an Intercooler, first on a Mustang.
D) 5-speed Manual trans (no Mustang before 1984 had a 5-spd Manual trans)
E) Rear quad shock setup (was in production from 84 until the live axle was dropped)
F) All-wheel VENTED disc brakes
G) 16" 5-lug wheels (which paved the way for use of larger rims on future models)
H) Aero headlamps & parking lamps (didn't exist on ANY Mustang until 1987)
J) Adjustable fuel type
K) First stainless steel dual exhaust that was carried over to the 5.0
L) Leather interior (seats, e-brake and shifter knob)
M) Koni adjustable suspension
O) EFI on a Mustang, yes, before the 86 "EFI 5.0"
P) functional lumbar support
Q) Speedo that went to 140mph (no modern Mustang of the era had such a speedo)
R) 85-86 SVO's came with 3.73 gearing - unheard of for any v8

The SVO kept up with its GT counterpart in the 1/4, their times were not off by that much at all. The ONLY reasons the SVO failed and had lack luster sales was due to Ford not properly educating their Sales Teams,the Sales Teams didn't know how to market or sell the car and the fact that the SVO was priced way higher than a GT.

I'm sure I'm missing things - but point being - I'm a 5.0 guy from the start, always had v8's and every time I see a thread of V8 guys bashing the 4cyl makes me laugh. The EB can surely keep up very close to your V8 - sure it doesn't have the V8 sound, but it still shares the LEGACY.

If it wasn't for the humble 4cyl Mustang beginning in 1962, none of you V8 Mustangs would exist...

Go check out the EB subforum on here - there's guys making extreme power that can turn a V8 on its roof, so in today's "HP wars", the EB can surely hold its own and the aftermarket is just as big as it is for the V8.

BTW - as far as the mpg arguments go - I've been getting 27mpg in my 16 EB/PP since it was purchased. So mpg doesn't mean squat, because there's way too many variables based on geographic location, use of vehicle, miles driven daily, traffic, outside air temps and driver type (aggressive vs granny). So whether it's a V8 or EB, if you're a stop light racer, mpg is MOOT.

 

[King Jackmode]

No, seriously.... [MENTION=16952]Glenn G[/MENTION] I have no reason to believe he is lying.... his videos don't. He is a legend over in the Ecoboost section. ;)

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36560





But we all know that definitely is a lie... unless your wife drives like a man... and you like a... well....

Hey, I know it's tough for you having not bought the GT. No need to take it out on me though.:lol:

 

[Seceda91]

As long as it's a :ford:, who cares!

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I don't know where some of you are coming off by saying the EB has "no grunt".

I've owned Mustangs since the late 80's, 95% were all 5.0 or "V8" variety, including (2) original SVO's.

Unless my EB is an anomaly from those who say they HAVE driven an EB, mine has A LOT of grunt and can give most V8's a run for their money - that's in both the normal drive mode and Sport mode.

I believe most who are trashing the EB either never really drove one - not putzed around @ 35mph in a residential zone - I mean REALLY driven one on an open highway where it counts and made the horse RUN.

Also (2) fun facts for those 4cyl haters:

1) The original Mustang, the FIRST Mustang to have been built and driven was a 4cyl. Sure it wasn't the iconic final design, but it was in fact THE Mustang that put ALL of us on the map for the last 50yrs.

2) The 1984 Mustang SVO (4cyl turbo) pioneered MANY "Mustang firsts" that were eventually used in later production Mustangs:
A) SVO Team which evolved into Ford Performance of today. Without the SVO Team, the SVT Cobras and their subsequent "Ford Shelby" or Cobra Jets of today would not exist.
B) SVO, to SVE, to SVT
C) Use of an Intercooler, first on a Mustang.
D) 5-speed Manual trans (no Mustang before 1984 had a 5-spd Manual trans)
E) Rear quad shock setup (was in production from 84 until the live axle was dropped)
F) All-wheel VENTED disc brakes
G) 16" 5-lug wheels (which paved the way for use of larger rims on future models)
H) Aero headlamps & parking lamps (didn't exist on ANY Mustang until 1987)
J) Adjustable fuel type
K) First stainless steel dual exhaust that was carried over to the 5.0
L) Leather interior (seats, e-brake and shifter knob)
M) Koni adjustable suspension
O) EFI on a Mustang, yes, before the 86 "EFI 5.0"
P) functional lumbar support
Q) Speedo that went to 140mph (no modern Mustang of the era had such a speedo)
R) 85-86 SVO's came with 3.73 gearing - unheard of for any v8

The SVO kept up with its GT counterpart in the 1/4, their times were not off by that much at all. The ONLY reasons the SVO failed and had lack luster sales was due to Ford not properly educating their Sales Teams,the Sales Teams didn't know how to market or sell the car and the fact that the SVO was priced way higher than a GT.

I'm sure I'm missing things - but point being - I'm a 5.0 guy from the start, always had v8's and every time I see a thread of V8 guys bashing the 4cyl makes me laugh. The EB can surely keep up very close to your V8 - sure it doesn't have the V8 sound, but it still shares the LEGACY.

If it wasn't for the humble 4cyl Mustang beginning in 1962, none of you V8 Mustangs would exist...

Go check out the EB subforum on here - there's guys making extreme power that can turn a V8 on its roof, so in today's "HP wars", the EB can surely hold its own and the aftermarket is just as big as it is for the V8.

BTW - as far as the mpg arguments go - I've been getting 27mpg in my 16 EB/PP since it was purchased. So mpg doesn't mean squat, because there's way too many variables based on geographic location, use of vehicle, miles driven daily, traffic, outside air temps and driver type (aggressive vs granny). So whether it's a V8 or EB, if you're a stop light racer, mpg is MOOT.

Your getting a little carried away. If your idea of 14 second stock vs 12.8 seconds stock on average is similar. Then ok?:headbonk: You recommend going to the EB section to learn about extreme power? I recommend you get out of the EB section and travel to the drag racing section. Once there look up the fastest EB. Then compare to the fastest V8. Report back on how it's holding its own.;)

 

[Nitronorth]

I went through this myself the hard way, owned both... I ordered in a eco ppack soon as they came out. I thought it would be a great road trip car, it was, but... sold it 2 months after i got it, after a nice 4000 mile road trip, loved the look and handling of the car, gas mileage was great! But I couldnt stand the sound of it, tin can engine,especially in my garage as that rattlin thing echoed of the walls on startup! and i really hated how it died on the hard shifts. No fun there! I could have kept it and liked it, but some else wanted it bad. I waited a year and tested a 16, 5.0gt...the minute i hit the starter it was all good again, it had soul! I bought one. I can get rubber in 4 gears, I love it.I would never go back to the 4 banger thank you. That engine had no soul, although for people brought up on 4 bangers, i know they will lover the eco! You like turbo 4, get the eco, great package for the new generation. But if you need the soul of the v8, get it!

 

[LETHAL]

My 15' GT is cheap to insure. Full coverage on it and my wife's 13' Taurus SEL 2.0 EB and 2008 CVPI ANDDDDDDDD 1990 Bronco is $170 a month.

Call it bs or whatever, but the GT can see 30mpg on the average. Even if it's a few mpg off as it's been stated elseware, that's still 27-28 mpg. Pretty damn good for 435hp.

I'll hand respect over to the EB crowd. Decent numbers all around for a 2.3L T. The 2.0L EB has impressed me in my wife's heavy Taurus.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I'll hand respect over to the EB crowd. Decent numbers all around for a 2.3L T. The 2.0L EB has impressed me in my wife's heavy Taurus.

When you consider what you get with the EB. It's a HUGE bargain for the amount of performance. 23-24K buys. It kicks the other pony cars entry level offerings in the ass. I don't think you can score a WRX for the same money as the EB? If I was a young guy with other things to worry about. Like buying a house or starting a family. I'd be all over an EB.

 

[Cobra Jet]

Your getting a little carried away. If your idea of 14 second stock vs 12.8 seconds stock on average is similar. Then ok?:headbonk: You recommend going to the EB section to learn about extreme power? I recommend you get out of the EB section and travel to the drag racing section. Once there look up the fastest EB. Then compare to the fastest V8. Report back on how it's holding its own.;)

Good retort and convo - so don't take any offense to the below.

The point being missed - the V8 Mustang was designed and derived from an original 4cyl drivetrain - the Mustang NEVER came to light with a V8.

The EB's are keeping up with the "5.0's", maybe not to most V8 owner terms - but granted, the tuned/modified EB guys are turning 9's, a far cry from that 80's SVO that everyone wants to relate the new EB back to, when it's not even any comparison. Everyone with a GT thinks "oh, 4cyl, turbo, it has nothing over a V8"...

Here's another thing too about the EB:
There IS a difference between driving a Base EB vs. a Performance Pack equipped EB. So if some of you drove the EB base, which for one has shitty 3.15 rear gearing and other variances due how the base is equipped vs. a PP, then I could see how some folks could perceive an EB Mustang to be "gutless". This is not to put down any EB Base owners, but there is a definite difference between the 2 EB models.

Can the EB models be tuned, upgraded, modified, raced and also get poor gas mileage like a V8.... sure thing! not a jab, just saying, an EB owner can have just as much fun, if not match the performance/handling aspect of the 5.0 with the same efforts. Everyone agrees an EB Mustang will never sound like a V8....

 

[dgc333]

. The problem with the eco boost engine is its too small for a car this size. A 2.7 would be the sweet spot. I drove both and was turned off immediately by the lack of grunt in the eco4. There is a mid 50s lady at my gym who has the eco and loves it. It has all the style with better gas mileage, cheaper insurance, and more performance than she will ever use. Depends on your needs / desires

Not sure how you can say that the engine is to small for the car. The 2.3 Ecoboost makes more power than every v8 Mustang from 64 to 04 with the exception of the 02/03 Cobras and makes the same power as the 05 to 10 v8. Down around 2000 rpm the 2.3 Ecoboost actually makes a few more ft-lbs of torque compared to the 5.0 Coyote. Any car that can get into the 13s in the quarter can't be considered under powered.

I have been driving turbo 4 cars as daily drivers continuously for over 30 years. My measure of whether an engine has enough grunt for the size/weight of the car is how it performs off boost. The Mustang with the 2.3 Ecoboost easily keeps up with traffic without ever going into a boost, that tells me the engine is adequate in size for the weight of the car.

 

[jvandy50]

I drove a super crew truck with the ecoboost, tune and exhaust. I know its a bigger engine, but its also a big truck...thing would MOVE. It was pretty fun to drive i have to admit. Only thing i didn't like was the sound...to me that is part of the driving experience. Either one of these cars will be nice, but I'd get the one i really wanted if i were you. I haven't seen any of these crazy high mpg in my GT, but I'd imagine if you get a rear end suited for your highway commute you won't be just suffering too bad.

Good luck with your choice:cheers:

 

[kwpony]

I don't know where some of you are coming off by saying the EB has "no grunt".

I totally agree. I don't understang either. :shrug: I have the EB and I have NO, ZERO regrets. She is fast, quick and handles beautifully. I like the sound. Yes of course the V8 roar is awesome. No denying that. Eventually, I will get a Ford tune to boost hp a bit however, 317 bhp stock is pretty damm good as far as I'm concerned. Also, I'll upgrade the exhaust in the future. :ford:

 

[shelbywannabe]

I went through this myself the hard way, owned both... I ordered in a eco ppack soon as they came out. I thought it would be a great road trip car, it was, but... sold it 2 months after i got it, after a nice 4000 mile road trip, loved the look and handling of the car, gas mileage was great! But I couldnt stand the sound of it, tin can engine,especially in my garage as that rattlin thing echoed of the walls on startup! and i really hated how it died on the hard shifts. No fun there! I could have kept it and liked it, but some else wanted it bad. I waited a year and tested a 16, 5.0gt...the minute i hit the starter it was all good again, it had soul! I bought one. I can get rubber in 4 gears, I love it.I would never go back to the 4 banger thank you. That engine had no soul, although for people brought up on 4 bangers, i know they will lover the eco! You like turbo 4, get the eco, great package for the new generation. But if you need the soul of the v8, get it!

That was my experience also. Great car, but that V8 was what I really wanted so I made the switch

 

[PatrickGT]

I love some of these replies, lol

"Mah Ecoboost has more power than an 94 GT!" Uh-huh, and the GT now makes 435 so since life is how it is and not how it was you should stfu.

"I tuned mine, this is how it should have come from the factory!" Several things here, one you have voided the warranty that not everyone is interested in voiding and two there is a reason it didn't come like that from the factory. Several, in fact.

It would benefit many of you to choose to think before you submit, everything isn't the same as everything else so let's stop pretending.

Sponsored