2016 Mustang GT vs EB, which one to buy?

[shelbywannabe]

Oh, it was pure luck I found this one, it had 300 miles on it because the manager had been driving it, and that was the only leverage I had. He kept telling me it was new, and I argued it was used. He said it had never changed ownership, blah blah blah, so I sent him a document from my credit union that showed "Any vehicle with more than 3,000 miles was considered used." but I kinda doctored it to say 300 miles before I sent it to him, and it worked.

Yes, I'm a jerk, it was dishonest, but I don't care... I digress.

Finally one for the good guys !!

Sponsored

 

[Stormtrooper5.0]

So I went on cars.com... found many new GTs for under 30k....
there was even a Premium for 28.5k. the lowest was a base GT for 26k.

None of them near me lol.

 

[Norm Peterson]

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.

This is the proper way to evaluate a turbocharged car, although you can't drive a turbocharged car in quite the same way you can drive a NA-engined car with the same or even quite a bit less power.

In my book, one liter of off-boost engine per 1500, maybe 1600 lbs of car isn't enough. Once on boost it's generally fine, effectively ending up somewhere around 900 or 1000 lbs/L - which does provide a little 'sparkle' to the drive if not exactly brutish performance. My wife's Subie (2.5L turbocharged, 34xx lbs) sits at something like 1400 lbs/L off boost . . . and it's a slug below 2000 rpm where normal street driving can sometimes 'strand' you. Typically this happens exiting corners at a speed too slow for 3rd but where you were going too fast coming up to the corner to reasonably use 2nd going through it. It's also a 13.9 second car, at 99.5 mph according to Motor Trend, but you'd never believe it while you were stumbling along at 1700 rpm in 3rd or 4th gear.

An automatic would be a far better match for a smallish-displacement four installed in a 3500+ lb car. That may well suit OP far better than it ever could me.


Norm

 

[5pointOh]

So I went on cars.com... found many new GTs for under 30k....
there was even a Premium for 28.5k. the lowest was a base GT for 26k.

None of them near me lol.

That one for 28.5 is a GT PP 400a. Way too far away from me, plus they drilled a stupid tag bracket into the front bumper:frusty:

 

[Ebm]

That's a pretty subjective statement you're posting as fact. I replaced my 150hp/236lb ft torque Jetta with this Mustang. Going from 150hp to 310hp is an eye opening experience. I haven't had my GT for 8 years, so I'd forgotten what having this kind of horsepower feels like.



I'm pretty sure base automatics get 3.15. The non-PP manuals get 3.31.

True. My bad, I was referring to the manual options.

Btw, were you on TDIClubForums or VwVortex? We both came from a Jetta. I came from a modded TDI putting down around 180 fwhp and 320 lb ft of torque.

You can definitely tell the Mustang is a lot faster. Yes, the TDI is torquey, but you need something that the torque can push.

 

[AmericanLegend]

Alright, more previous TDI owners.
I had a 2010 Jetta TDI (Malone Stage2), H&R Coilovers & H&R Swaybars.

Going from 170 hp/300 ft-lbs to 435 hp/400 ft-lbs is fun.

The only thing I miss is the 40mpg average, BUT I get way more smiles per mile with the Mustang GT. So worth the extra fuel cost.

 

[metalhead79]

True. My bad, I was referring to the manual options.

Btw, were you on TDIClubForums or VwVortex? We both came from a Jetta. I came from a modded TDI putting down around 180 fwhp and 320 lb ft of torque.

You can definitely tell the Mustang is a lot faster. Yes, the TDI is torquey, but you need something that the torque can push.

I browsed the forums after dieselgate happened and looked into modding it but decided to sell it back and return to fast cars, specifically Mustangs. I'm on the road 1.5 hours a day, minimum. Decided I should at least be making the commute in something fun to drive (even though some here vehemetly deny an EB Mustang is fun at all).

On the TDI you can feel boost coming on and that swell of torque hitting and then....nothing, there's no power to go anywhere with it.

Alright, more previous TDI owners.
I had a 2010 Jetta TDI (Malone Stage2), H&R Coilovers & H&R Swaybars.

Going from 170 hp/300 ft-lbs to 435 hp/400 ft-lbs is fun.

The only thing I miss is the 40mpg average, BUT I get way more smiles per mile with the Mustang GT. So worth the extra fuel cost.

I went from around 42mpg to 26ish. No regrets!

 

[GJarrett]

I'm on the road 1.5 hours a day, minimum. Decided I should at least be making the commute in something fun to drive (even though some here vehemetly deny an EB Mustang is fun at all).

My decision process exactly. I put about 1,500 miles/month on my car working and decided I might as well enjoy the time I spent in my car.

 

[KV Racing]

I drive 50 miles round trip every day back and forth to work, and there is nothing "boring" about my EcoBoost PP during that daily commute. I have never experienced the "acted like it was going to die", "too heavy of a car for too small of an engine", etc, and yet with a mix of city and hiway I still get an average of 27 mpg. I think the auto trans and 3.55 gear makes a big difference in how that small motor performs in that platform. I've driven plenty of underpowered cars, and this isnt one of them. Is it a V8, no, but it sure doesnt feel like a 2.3 litre engine either. I've given several coworkers a ride in the car, and they are all amazed it's "just a 4 cylinder." And that includes one coworker who has a 2016 Chevy SS that he cammed, exhaust, etc that puts down 490 at the tires.
Regardless of what I have read in this thread, I dont regret buying this car at all.
What I do find a little sad though is the apparent emotional similarities between GT owners and those arrogant, a$$hole corvette owners.

 

[PatrickHenninger]

What I do find a little sad though is the apparent emotional similarities between GT owners and those arrogant, a$$hole corvette owners.

Probably because there is one similarity...

We both own a car that's faster than yours. (I couldn't resist)

 

[dgc333]

This is the proper way to evaluate a turbocharged car, although you can't drive a turbocharged car in quite the same way you can drive a NA-engined car with the same or even quite a bit less power.

In my book, one liter of off-boost engine per 1500, maybe 1600 lbs of car isn't enough. Once on boost it's generally fine, effectively ending up somewhere around 900 or 1000 lbs/L - which does provide a little 'sparkle' to the drive if not exactly brutish performance. My wife's Subie (2.5L turbocharged, 34xx lbs) sits at something like 1400 lbs/L off boost . . . and it's a slug below 2000 rpm where normal street driving can sometimes 'strand' you. Typically this happens exiting corners at a speed too slow for 3rd but where you were going too fast coming up to the corner to reasonably use 2nd going through it. It's also a 13.9 second car, at 99.5 mph according to Motor Trend, but you'd never believe it while you were stumbling along at 1700 rpm in 3rd or 4th gear.

An automatic would be a far better match for a smallish-displacement four installed in a 3500+ lb car. That may well suit OP far better than it ever could me.

Norm

Norm,
I like the idea of a simple formula but it just doesn't work in the real world. There is to much variation in the power output of engines to be able to say if the engine will provide adequate performance off boost by dividing the weight by the displacement.

Using your formula a WRX at 1600lb/l, Audi A4 at 1800lb/l, Focus ST at 1600lb/l would all be considered inadequate. As a matter of fact there are very few that would meet your criteria. The only way to know is to drive the vehicle.

I purchased the Ecoboost Mustang as an enjoyable & economical commuter car and from that perspective it has been the best car I have ever had. As I previously stated I can drive my 48 mile round trip suburban commute without ever going into boost and keep up or accelerate away from traffic I encounter. My normal operating rpm range is between 1500 and 3500 rpm. But when the urge strikes me and I want to romp on it the car is a very satisfying performance car.

 

[PatrickHenninger]

I purchased the Ecoboost Mustang as an enjoyable & economical commuter car and from that perspective it has been the best car I have ever had. As I previously stated I can drive my 48 mile round trip suburban commute without ever going into boost and keep up or accelerate away from traffic I encounter. My normal operating rpm range is between 1500 and 3500 rpm. But when the urge strikes me and I want to romp on it the car is a very satisfying performance car.

My wife loves my GT, but she has admitted she's a little afraid of it. She wants to be able to floor it at 20mph and not worry about it kicking sideways, and this is why she will probably get an EcoBoost.

 

[shelbywannabe]

I drive 50 miles round trip every day back and forth to work, and there is nothing "boring" about my EcoBoost PP during that daily commute. I have never experienced the "acted like it was going to die", "too heavy of a car for too small of an engine", etc, and yet with a mix of city and hiway I still get an average of 27 mpg. I think the auto trans and 3.55 gear makes a big difference in how that small motor performs in that platform. I've driven plenty of underpowered cars, and this isnt one of them. Is it a V8, no, but it sure doesnt feel like a 2.3 litre engine either. I've given several coworkers a ride in the car, and they are all amazed it's "just a 4 cylinder." And that includes one coworker who has a 2016 Chevy SS that he cammed, exhaust, etc that puts down 490 at the tires.
Regardless of what I have read in this thread, I dont regret buying this car at all.
What I do find a little sad though is the apparent emotional similarities between GT owners and those arrogant, a$$hole corvette owners.

Why bring Corvette owners into the mix ? This is a Mustang discussion. I have had Corvettes and honestly there is no comparison between a Mustang and a Corvette. Not all Corvette owners are arrogant either and we know that. Some car guys are arrogant whatever they are driving. The Ecoboost is a good car. The factory tune sucks in my opinion but it is what it is.
Bottom line is buy what you want or can afford. Its your car and you are paying for it. I went with the Ecoboost Performance Pack, kept it for a year and ended up getting a GT anyway so for me I made the wrong decision and it cost me some money in trade in value but I got such a great deal on the GT it made it back up so I am more than pleased.

 

[Quackfoo]

My wife loves my GT, but she has admitted she's a little afraid of it. She wants to be able to floor it at 20mph and not worry about it kicking sideways, and this is why she will probably get an EcoBoost.

Lol and I would have been depressed if I COULDN'T kick it sideways at 20mph

 

[Norm Peterson]

Norm,
I like the idea of a simple formula but it just doesn't work in the real world. There is to much variation in the power output of engines to be able to say if the engine will provide adequate performance off boost by dividing the weight by the displacement.

Using your formula a WRX at 1600lb/l, Audi A4 at 1800lb/l, Focus ST at 1600lb/l would all be considered inadequate. As a matter of fact there are very few that would meet your criteria. The only way to know is to drive the vehicle.

Agreed, and maybe I need to be a little more clear that it applies mainly to manual transmission turbocharged cars running under off-boost conditions.

My wife's Subie does have quite good performance once the boost is all in, and it's fins for most driving. But in the situations I mentioned before it does come up short. And when rolling into the throttle somewhere in the middle of a long sweeper I still find it annoying to have to anticipate how long it's going to take for full boost is going to come in, and where before that happens I'll be able to go to WOT. There is a sweeper near me where I'm above 3000 rpm (4th gear, 55-ish mph) to begin with, and there is still noticeable lag, enough to justify getting to full WOT 75 feet or so sooner than I would in either of my NA cars being driven with comparable "enthusiasm".

This doesn't make MT turbo cars inadequate for everybody, just because I can encounter behavior that doesn't appeal to me. Just something for others to possibly be aware of and to decide on for themselves.


Norm

Sponsored