Trade a 2015 GT auto non PP for a 2016 Eco PP auto?

[Rich S]

It is broken, I drove mine HARD and never even came close to that low. No doubt the eco handles better. I had an eco PP and not have a GT PP and you can tell the eco is lighter up front. Highway I had mine up to 35 mpg. You will see a big difference in mileage. You will miss the sound of the GT though. The eco sound is just horrible to me. I would never do what you are considering but that is me.

Sponsored

 

[Socalmustang]

You're going to lose thousands on your trade-in, think about that. Even though you do drive a lot, it will take a really long time to make up that difference.

 

[Asonitez]

This is the first I'm hearing about going from a 2015 V8 GT to a 2016 EB PP...

I went from a 15' V6 to a 16' GT Premium.

As far as MPG is concerned I have been averaging pretty good mpg in my V8 for my 20 minute commute to work in Charlotte. The entire way is light to light and I never really get to go past 50 unless i'm passing someone. 1 Tank of gas easily lasts me a week and a half or more.

I think you need to ask yourself WHY you are willing to get out of your car.

Is it a New color, Better interior a new model year, shiny brembo brakes or a blow off valve? - i ask because when I was shopping around this is why I wanted to go to a EB from my V6. But then I realized I could go to a GT for the same px and said Fuk it and went to the GT.


I would stay with the GT. Wait for the next refresh and trade the GT for another car. If your willing to eat the negative equity like I was then go for it. I feel like your getting LESS engine that will take MORE money to get BACK To where you are NOW. If you took that same money and applied it to what you have now you could have a Supercar for less than 10K.

I know your biggest selling point is your commute.. but if you put that same 5k or more in negative equity towards a 4 cylinder civic you would still be better off than trading it.

 

[Chameleon]

don't trade your car in because you have the wrong tires. just get some performance tires and it totally changes the car.

You're going to lose thousands on your trade-in, think about that. Even though you do drive a lot, it will take a really long time to make up that difference.

This^^ Get some good tires.

 

[ppiamp]

So you are saying that the poor handling and is mostly tires and not the PP suspension upgrade? This car and driver review calls it correctly...

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

the basic Mustang GT is a floater. Ford has chosen a relatively mushy suspension tune that makes the GT a serene choice for long highway trips but a slightly squishier steed on the twisty sections. At times, such as when crossing onto the varied surfaces of bridge overpasses at 70 mph, the nose develops a distinctly vintage circular bob as the circa-3800-pound car does a slight shimmy and porpoise at the same time. Undulations can really work over the base GT’s springs, while the all-season tires can ruin a good switchback with some squealing understeer.​

 

[dwroth]

Time to start hypermiling that GT!

 

[113]

Hey 113 ...Same here, I have about 100 miles per day also. I was hoping to get into the low 20s mpg wise with the eco.

Handling is more important than speed for me. I would love to get a GT auto with the PP...Ford is not having any of it...ugh

The advice above about changing up the route on your commute makes sense. Try a different route, even if it's a bit longer if it saves you gas because of less traffic.

Also, as someone else mentioned, does Ecoboost require Premium fuel? If so, at the moment there's about a $.50/gallon difference (at least in in our neck of the woods) between 87 and 93 octane. I use 93 on my GT right now, but if I wanted to start saving money on gas I'd just move to 87 and that's about $6 per fill-up savings, and I fill up roughly 2-3x/week --> so at minimum that's $12/week in savings -> $48/month in savings --> $576/year in savings. Point being, if you are currently running 93 on your GT, just move over to 87 and you'll see a lot of money back in your wallet.

 

[StangMan04]

So you are saying that the poor handling and is mostly tires and not the PP suspension upgrade? This car and driver review calls it correctly...

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

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2015-chevrolet-camaro-ss-1le-page-3

the basic Mustang GT is a floater. Ford has chosen a relatively mushy suspension tune that makes the GT a serene choice for long highway trips but a slightly squishier steed on the twisty sections. At times, such as when crossing onto the varied surfaces of bridge overpasses at 70 mph, the nose develops a distinctly vintage circular bob as the circa-3800-pound car does a slight shimmy and porpoise at the same time. Undulations can really work over the base GT’s springs, while the all-season tires can ruin a good switchback with some squealing understeer.​

Just trade in your GT. We don't need to convince you otherwise.

 

[AR306]

Ecoboost is nothing but a ploy in terms of fuel economy.

I tend to agree with this statement. Heh..

 

[StangMan04]

I tend to agree with this statement. Heh..

If you are traveling long distances with no traffic w/ cruise control on, the Ecoboost will do better, but that is because of the 4 cylinders and not being in boost. But in traffic or not cruising with cruise control on, the difference is negligible really.

 

[AR306]

If you are traveling long distances with no traffic w/ cruise control on, the Ecoboost will do better, but that is because of the 4 cylinders and not being in boost. But in traffic or not cruising with cruise control on, the difference is negligible really.

Yeah that's what I'm seeing.. I do about 90% city driving.. if I drive like I'm completely and utterly dead on the inside and hate any form of fun or entertainment as it pertains to automobiles.. then I could probably break 16mpg's as that's more or less what it was averaging when I first got it Lol.

Otherwise tho.. this thing is no where near the EPA estimates in the city.. on the highway it easily exceeds them however.

 

[krahooligan]

So you are saying that the poor handling and is mostly tires and not the PP suspension upgrade? This car and driver review calls it correctly...

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

the basic Mustang GT is a floater. Ford has chosen a relatively mushy suspension tune that makes the GT a serene choice for long highway trips but a slightly squishier steed on the twisty sections. At times, such as when crossing onto the varied surfaces of bridge overpasses at 70 mph, the nose develops a distinctly vintage circular bob as the circa-3800-pound car does a slight shimmy and porpoise at the same time. Undulations can really work over the base GT’s springs, while the all-season tires can ruin a good switchback with some squealing understeer.​

better tires and IRS components will increase the handling of your car tenfold.
get some springs, performance tires, and some BMR goodies and you will still spend less then if you traded the car in.

 

[ppiamp]

13 to 15 mpgs on the ecoboost? If those mpg are true, I think Ford would have a revolution on their hands.

 

[shockme66]

I went from a 15 EB Premium to 15 GT Premium and no regrets. I have a 18 mile commute and got 26mpg on my EB and now get 21mpg on my GT. For the 5 MPG loss it was well worth it.

 

[ppiamp]

I was thinking going the suspension mod route....I do worry about the warranty a bit. Also, it is such an unknown outcome. I just do not know enough about car NVH and engineering to start to replace parts and hope it has a good outcome.

Sponsored