Want To Guess Mileage Claims For The Turbo 4

[Bullitt3980]

I've been trying to figure out what Ford's MPG claims are going to be. I'm pretty sure I will get the GT model but I'm very open to seeing what the Ecoboost with track pack can do. Maximum acceleration isn't as important to me as I get older and the thought of the fuel savings appeals to me more as I plan to keep the car for a long time--at my age probably the last new car I buy. I bet when the buff mags get Mustangs to test the I4 will get a lot of press just because we havn't seen a boosted non SVT since 1981.

Sponsored

 

[Dirk McGurck]

They'll claim up to 30-something and everyone will argue about it until the day they die.

 

[minicobra]

The Focus ST gets about 26 combined. 23city, 32hwy. (252hp)
Edmonds long term car avg 24.2mpg. combined.
Since the Mustang will have around 320hp I don't imagine it will get much better then that. They are claiming an all new engine, so who knows, maybe they will be able to beat the ST on mileage, or at least match it.

Ford has said that it will best the current V6 on MPG, so that's a good sign.

 

[crysalis_01]

I'm gonna throw out a "safe" bet, that with the current 3.7 pulling off a still impressive 19c/31h, that the new 2.3T will pull a 21c/34h. Although that's with a light foot. It being a turbocharged mill I'm sure once your in the boost those numbers will go down drastically. But with "real world" ... "normal" driving they should be easily attainable.

Those of us that are performance enthusiests, those most likely to get the 2.3PP, won't see those numbers but we'll enjoy the drive anyway.

 

[Cosmos]

...Ford has said that it will best the current V6 on MPG, so that's a good sign.

With the probable manner in which most 2.3EB models will be driven, I doubt that the V6s will be at the bottom of the MPG scale.

 

[86GT]

20/32 for the manual and 20/33 for the auto

 

[Ericc B]

I would say not that much different from the V6.

The whole Ecoboost thing is a clever marketing name, suggesting massive fuel efficiency but in reality will be worse than expected. Over here we are being flooded with Turbo-4's from all manufacturers and their fuel economy always looks great under ideal test cycle circumstances but fails in every day driving.

That being said it ís probably going to be a sweet engine to drive, with great torque and without the obese weight of a V8.

But if you're a normal driver and it's fuel economy you're after don't get your hopes up because you will be disappointed. If you plan on using the car for regular driving and keeping it for a long time then I would seriously advise on getting the V6, which will outlive any turbo engine, guaranteed. Chances of a turbo failing after 100K miles are sky high and they cost a fortune to repair or replace. With a V6 you will pass 100K smiling from ear to ear, knowing you will easily do another 100K without any problems.

 

[Cosmos]

A pragmatic view and well said.

 

[Gmxblazer]

But if you're a normal driver and it's fuel economy you're after don't get your hopes up because you will be disappointed. If you plan on using the car for regular driving and keeping it for a long time then I would seriously advise on getting the V6, which will outlive any turbo engine, guaranteed. Chances of a turbo failing after 100K miles are sky high and they cost a fortune to repair or replace. With a V6 you will pass 100K smiling from ear to ear, knowing you will easily do another 100K without any problems.

I just recently got rid of my 02 wrx stock block motor with 175k on it and the last 50k were at power levels that were double the stock output. Only problem I had was the glass transmission. Many Diesel trucks with turbos have no problem pushing 200-300k without issue. Subaru, Mitsubishi, Nissan , and some more manufactures have no problem exceeding 150k miles or 200k without much maintenance.

Yes I understand what you are saying about peace of mind I love my 3.7 but I would trust the 2.3 ecoboost just as much. These companies just don't release an engine without lots of R&D.

I also disagree with your MPG statement. I believe if someone daily drives the 2.3 and doesn't beat the piss out of it. I think the real-world numbers
will have the Eco boost come out on top. But if people drive the mustang like its meant to be driven I think the mpg difference will be marginal at best, they will probably be identical. Don't get me wrong I love the 3.7L motor I just believe that the Eco boost will be a true upgrade not just a performance one.

 

[Ericc B]

Oh trust me the EB will have better fuel economy, just not a whole lot that's all I'm saying. And considering the additional investment and the higher risk of future repair costs I just don't think it's a great choice for someone who is looking for a long term ownership. If you're gonna own it for only a few years then by all means go for it.

As a matter of fact I am going to get an EB myself. But the main reason for that is an estimated $30.000 difference in new car tax because of the theoretical difference in CO2 output between the EB and the V6. The tax regulations over here are completely insane and are forcing people into the most rediculous downsized engines. Every gram of CO2 shaved off means hundres of dollars less new car tax. Ford is actually introducing the new Fusion here by the end of the year with a 125 hp 1 liter 3-cylinder Ecoboost engine.

 

[Spartan]

The V6 with the new design/weight, etc will get somewhere around 21 city, 33 highway I'm guessing.

Ecoboost has to do a few better mpg then that...so Im going for 23/33 for the ecoboost with a normal foot.

 

[Voodoo1796]

Chances of a turbo failing after 100K miles are sky high and they cost a fortune to repair or replace. With a V6 you will pass 100K smiling from ear to ear, knowing you will easily do another 100K without any problems.

Turbo pops at 100k? Time for built internals and a 35R!

The V6 with the new design/weight, etc will get somewhere around 21 city, 33 highway I'm guessing.

Ecoboost has to do a few better mpg then that...so Im going for 23/33 for the ecoboost with a normal foot.

I'd like to see the Ecoboost at a spread more like 25-26 for city, 33 highway because my (admittedly short) commute is mostly city style driving. I'm still more likely to get the V8, but the Ecoboost isn't completely off the table.

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

21/34 with the auto, 21/31 with manual. Not great. :thumbdown:

 

[Gmxblazer]

Turbo pops at 100k? Time for built internals and 35R

Hell....... Yes!

 

[Spartan]

Oh trust me the EB will have better fuel economy, just not a whole lot that's all I'm saying. And considering the additional investment and the higher risk of future repair costs I just don't think it's a great choice for someone who is looking for a long term ownership. If you're gonna own it for only a few years then by all means go for it.

If you really feel this way, send your concerns to FORD. I'm sure they'll address them back.

I HIGHLY doubt they are going to put an engine that has issues like you are saying in this car.

Sponsored