EVO Magazine Review (GT and EcoBoost)

EVO | David Vivian said:

We set off from Sunset Boulevard in the 2.3-litre EcoBoost-engined GT and first impressions aren’t too encouraging. The engine note has obviously been tuned to comply with a Mustang mindset and, at moderate revs on part throttle, it sounds appropriately gruff and growly. But there’s a rather grey, industrial edge to its work that’s vaguely off-putting and makes me wonder what awaits us in the hills when we shake off LA’s morning commuter crawl. In the meantime, the chunky, short-throw gearshift feels good and, well, everyone seems to be looking at us and mouthing ‘2015’. They know their Mustangs in this town. Then there’s the low-speed ride. Firm, yes, but unremittingly jiggly on what looks to be a reasonably well-surfaced road. It may seem premature, but a few doubts are beginning to bubble up.

Half an hour later most, if not all, have vanished along with the hazy LA smog. Now the terrain is streaming smooth, grippy, well-cambered curves of varying constant radii and suddenly the ’Stang is a different car, with what appears to be a superstar chassis. It feels amazingly planted and settled with exceptional, and wholly unexpected, reserves of grip evenly balanced front to rear. The electric steering isn’t as feel-less as some but it does lack precision off- centre, so although the front end turns in well, a second stab of lock is sometimes required to finesse the course. The final transition to sliding, usually all-of-a-piece, is so benign, gradual and transparent, the car bids you to constantly nibble at the limit while adjusting the angle of attack with the throttle. Merely lifting off tucks the nose towards the apex with a measured consistency that engenders huge confidence. True, mid-bend bumps can cause a rocking motion as the dampers try to control the body but, overall, the Mustang’s chassis dynamics are a revelation. Fine brakes, too, with a lovely progressive pedal feel.

Regrettably, it’s harder to like the EcoBoost motor. It’s a sturdy enough mid-range performer but hopelessly breathless at the top end and too noisy when fully exercised. It wouldn’t be so bad if the engine note had a more appealing quality, but it’s a joyless thing. A legitimate riposte might be ‘it’s the economy, stupid’. Not really. At one point the average mpg readout dipped to 9.6mpg (US). Later, in the V8, on the same roads, going just as fast but with less effort, the lowest reading we saw was 10.9mpg. Draw your own conclusion. Then there’s the gloriously resonant, guttural, free-revving Bullitt-lite soundtrack, the altogether more convincing push in the back and, despite the extra weight in the nose, an entertaining handling balance. I think I know which one Steve McQueen would have chosen.

Click to expand...

Darrinm03 said:

Originally Posted by EVO | David Vivian
"We set off from Sunset Boulevard in the 2.3-litre EcoBoost-engined GT"


Say what??

Click to expand...

OppoLock said:

Literally the only typo but good point. Discounting the whole article because of that would make you an idiot though.

Click to expand...

foghat said:

Thing is, that isn't a typo. Unless they meant to say "We set off from Sunset Boulevard in the 2.3-litre EcoBoost-engine and GT". And I doubt that is what they meant.

It looks more like a case of not knowing about that which you are reviewing. And that, to me, makes the whole article less credible.

That said, the comments about ecoboost not having much up top mirror what others have said and is consistent with using a smaller turbo. And to me, would sap some of the fun out of driving it.

Click to expand...

Darrinm03 said:

That's not a typo, if so, where was the typo? Was it supposed to say the 2.3 litre EcoBoost powered ecoboost mustang? Or perhaps even 2.3 litre ecoboost powered mustang. Either way, you don't accidentally typo "GT" when trying to type "Mustang". This is a case of them not getting thier facts straight before publishing. I won't discount the whole review, they just lose credibility with me

Click to expand...

foghat said:

Thing is, that isn't a typo. Unless they meant to say "We set off from Sunset Boulevard in the 2.3-litre EcoBoost-engine and GT". And I doubt that is what they meant.

It looks more like a case of not knowing about that which you are reviewing. And that, to me, makes the whole article less credible.

That said, the comments about ecoboost not having much up top mirror what others have said and is consistent with using a smaller turbo. And to me, would sap some of the fun out of driving it.

Click to expand...

OppoLock said:

I never would have guess that this thread's discussion would stem around the typo. Lmao

Click to expand...

OppoLock said:

I think it's pretty clear as day that the guy accidentally injected GT, probably as a mistake for model/fastback/mustang. The article immediately starts talking about the EB motor, then discusses the GT toward the end.

Click to expand...

Vickstang said:

Seriously :doh:

EVO is one of the most respected (and deservedly so) automotive publications around. Their journalists are serious car enthusiasts who know what they're talking about. So it says a lot when they like a car, which the seem to with the 2015 Mustang :clap2:

Click to expand...

OppoLock said:

I never would have guess that this thread's discussion would stem around the typo. Lmao

Click to expand...

foghat said:

All the more reason a mistake like that (whether a typo or ignorance) should not have made it into the published article. It is the first sentence for crying out loud.

Click to expand...