(Motor Trend) 2016 Chevrolet Camaro RS (2.0T) vs. 2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost

[Stevewil131]

Motor Trend Mustang Eco vs Camaro Rs

http://www.motortrend.com/news/comp...8A52BD34500B42E39377C1D9156F2BBD8161427F2372E


Pretty interesting. Worth the read.

Sponsored

 

[kz]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/comp...8A52BD34500B42E39377C1D9156F2BBD8161427F2372E


Pretty interesting. Worth the read.

Did you look around if there isn't a discussion already about it going on for like 2 days ?

 

[PIsenhour]

Read it last night and it is interesting, but I wonder what gas they used for the test?:shrug: The specs that they show is unleaded regular, but they complain consistently about the power which the HP specs are based off of premium.

 

[rlhmarines]

So I originally posted this on Camaro6 and I would like some clarification on this from this forum.

I can only see reference to the EB being tested with premium to obtain the higher hp/tq ratings but I have not found or seen anything that says premium is required. I do not see it on the dash anywhere or the monroney sticker from the ford website. So I would like to know how would any non enthusiast or regular Joe know to add premium?

And this was a response...

Found this in the '15 owners manual:

"2.3L EcoBoost and 5.0L V8 Engines
We recommend regular unleaded gasoline
with a pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87.
Some stations offer fuels posted as regular
with an octane rating below 87, particularly
in high altitude areas. We do not
recommend fuels with an octane rating
below 87.
To provide improved performance, we
recommend premium fuel for severe duty
usage, such as trailer tow."

So the ambiguity continues. My guess this is done on purpose for EPA estimates and as a selling point over the V6 Mustang. Again Ford wants to axe the V6 at some point. But didn't want to do it out of the gate.

 

[cosmo]

So I originally posted this on Camaro6 and I would like some clarification on this from this forum.



And this was a response...

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/

"310 hp @ 5500 rpm (2.3L EcoBoost®, 93-octane fuel)"

I believe 87 octane is 280-290 HP.

 

[1320']

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/

"310 hp @ 5500 rpm (2.3L EcoBoost®, 93-octane fuel)"

I believe 87 octane is 280-290 HP.

275 HP/300 TQ on 87

 

[rlhmarines]

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/

"310 hp @ 5500 rpm (2.3L EcoBoost®, 93-octane fuel)"

I believe 87 octane is 280-290 HP.

Thanks but I was hoping for maybe a decal or something on the fuel gauge or filler cap at a minimum.

 

[rlhmarines]

I would like to see a retest with both on premium fuel and all the OEM go fast options installed.

Edit: Motor Trend just updated the comments section with this;

Scott Evans moderatorFeatured
26 minutes ago
FOR THE RECORD: We used premium gasoline in both cars. Ford recommends, but does not require, premium, which is why it says "Unleaded Regular" in the spec chart under "Recommended Fuel."

 

[Agarc]

lol thats good though it can run on 87 though, when i had the srt4 the gas cap said 93 or else lol

 

[BmacIL]

I would like to see a retest with both on premium fuel and all the OEM go fast options installed.

Edit: Motor Trend just updated the comments section with this;

So then they really just admitted that they suck at launching, since it's definitely capable of at least 0.5-0.7s faster to 60! :headbonk:

 

[1320']

Or they realized they screwed the pooch and are now trying to save face and claim it was just a bit communications misunderstanding..despite the person who WROTE the article clearly said they used 87 octane since that's what the EPA rated it with.

I think MT got caught by the balls and now are scrambling to save their "integrity"

 

[Big Boss]

Motor Trends numbers are all over the place. Look how different the numbers for the Mustang are in this test VS their first drive of the EcoBoost PP. Granted that car in the first drive was an automatic, but all of the numbers just seem off.

 

[BmacIL]

Motor Trends numbers are all over the place. Look how different the numbers for the Mustang are in this test VS their first drive of the EcoBoost PP. Granted that car in the first drive was an automatic, but all of the numbers just seem off.

If they had mentioned that their previous test had a much better time, they would've saved a ton of face.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I would like to see a retest with both on premium fuel and all the OEM go fast options installed.

Edit: Motor Trend just updated the comments section with this;

And this.
Chris Walton, Road Test Editor 2 hours ago
@Norm-T Yes, regular unleaded for the Mustang, and that is also what the EPA used for fuel economy estimates here [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....=sbs&id=36877]
Looks like Motor trend might want to get their story straight.

 

[1320']

And this.
Chris Walton, Road Test Editor 2 hours ago
@Norm-T Yes, regular unleaded for the Mustang, and that is also what the EPA used for fuel economy estimates here [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....=sbs&id=36877]
Looks like Motor trend might want to get their story straight.

They're scrambling to say that he was trying to clarify what fuel the EPA uses.

Because the above quote totally sounds like that.

Sponsored