Car and Driver Review (EcoBoost)

Whiskey11 · Sep 17, 2014

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

Car and Driver said:
The 2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost is the answer to a question that was asked during the last oil crisis. Which, if you were born later than 1979, was blessedly over by the time you arrived. In the aftermath, Ford took a whack at the challenge of creating a sporty fuel-sipper with the turbocharged four-cylinder Mustang SVO, which was available from 1984 through 1986. The market yawned. Fuel prices crashed, and anyway, we don’t buy pony cars for their efficiency. A four-cylinder, no matter what its output on paper, is nothing short of the downright emasculation of the American dream.

And yet there’s not much to complain about this EcoBoost Mustang other than it’s more expensive than the base V-6 while offering very similar performance. Also, it drones like, well, like a four-cylinder. Ford has tried to punch up the exhaust note via the stereo system, but it’s no use. This turbo four speaks with no more verve than any Audi turbo four. And that’s a high compliment, because the engine, as well as the car it’s installed in, is quite refined.

Just a few minutes behind the new Mustang’s wheel convince you that Ford was aiming high with this car. The cabin isolation, the structural stiffness, the body control, and the finish quality are huge improvements over the last model. Is it all down to the independent rear suspension? Sure, some of it is. Over cracked pavement the car doesn’t shudder or clomp as hard as it did before. And a midcorner pavement heave isn’t going to have you fighting the steering wheel as you once did, because such things are now digested without complaint by the unsprung bits.

Ah, but what about the four’s acceleration? On the track, it lays down numbers almost identical to the last V-6 model, which was more than 100 pounds lighter than our Premium-trim automatic-transmission 2015 Mustang EcoBoost. The 60-mph mark comes in 5.2 seconds, the quarter-mile covered in 13.9 seconds at 98 mph. This is about what pre-Coyote-engine Mustang GTs once ran. So the EcoBoost is no EcoDud.

As with any turbo, there’s some hesitation as the turbo boils up. But this a high-tech aluminum engine, fitted with direct injection and cam phasing (it even takes regular gas!), and it doesn’t make you wait long. Nor are its power lumps especially pronounced. The torque flows in a pretty even rush to the transmission, and in most situations you have to be looking for the turbo lag to really notice it. As we said, refined!

Ford tuned the six-speed automatic to be a willing partner, meaning it downshifts quickly and gets the 2.3-liter spinning when you want a rapid departure. No, it’s not as neck-bending as the V-8, nor is it quite as instantaneous as the V-6, but when the power comes, it comes big enough to break the rear loose.

The EcoBoost drives similarly to the new GT, in that the basic suspension tune is forgiving and bumpy roads produce not a slamming but only a light rocking in the body. Around corners, this highly optioned car’s hefty mass—it weighed 3663 pounds—pulls the body into a noticeable lean, but the car doesn’t wallow or flop. It lets the weight set and then cuts a clean path through the corner.

Everything about this Mustang is upgraded, from the dashboard trimmings, which now include the optional full-zoot MyFord Touch system, to the way its stretched sheetmetal and slip of a roofline look modern going down the road. Ford’s job was to update its icon, and we’d say the mission was accomplished with aplomb.

As mentioned, our car was a Premium model, which adds four grand and a pile of equipment—the full rundown can be found here—to the $25,995 EcoBoost. Our car also had the $1195 automatic gearbox, $795 navigation, and $1195 bundle that combines adaptive cruise control, collision mitigation, and rain-sensing wipers. The spicy-sounding Equipment Group 201A brought convenience features and a 12-speaker audio system for $1795, and the $1995 EcoBoost Performance package added black 19-inch wheels with Pirelli P Zero summer tires; a fatter rear antiroll bar; sportier steering, brakes, and suspension tuning; an upgrade to GT-spec rotors and four-piston calipers; a 3.55:1 limited-slip rear end; a larger radiator; and some aesthetic upgrades. With some other minor baubles stirred in, our EcoBoost Mustang cost almost $38,000, or five grand more than a base manual GT.

Now, about the fuel economy. When you put a small turbo engine into a heavy car, the savings are generally not that grand. Ask a Fisker owner if you can find one. We saw 19 mpg overall, and you can probably expect low-to-mid-20s if you like to use your car as anything other than a nun’s taxi. Don’t be surprised if a few C7 Corvette owners snicker at you at the car show. They can often approach 30 mpg with their cars (while driving like nuns) or match your economy while also taking a few 455-hp licks of the underhood candy. The EPA says this Ford can achieve 32 mpg on the highway, though, for what it’s worth.

Thus, the Mustang EcoBoost isn’t as much about efficiency as it is about refinement and technology (and, we guess, the potential for efficiency if you drive cautiously). That makes it somewhat un-Mustang-like. It certainly doesn’t sound like a Mustang, and it is far more reserved and civilized than any Mustang you’ve driven in your life. It’s more like an American Audi A5 than a pony car. Alas, if only it were lighter. There’s no doubt, though, that a certain Audi-ness was what Ford—who will sell this car in Europe and around the world—was going for.

Smitty02 · Sep 17, 2014

Much more positive

Now this review is more like what I was expecting!

TampaBear67 · Sep 17, 2014

It’s more like an American Audi A5 than a pony car.*

That is EXACTLY What I Was Wanting to Hear about the Eco-Boost.

Spartan · Sep 17, 2014

Good review for EB owners. I'm still leaning towards the GT. It DOES make me consider it still because I love Audi's but they cost too much. And comparing it the A5 is a very nice compliment. Interesting about the MPG...I think the EB4 is not going to do as well as they thought in MPG.

Ford though it taking a big hit on the weight. As many have said how can you build this from scratch and then come up with a heavier car...just makes no sense (and you can't throw in the IRS because they had to know that would up it). Just seems nuts they couldn't trim weight from any place.

CisternaChyli · Sep 17, 2014

Excellent; finally a review i can get on board with. I'm glad the car is more European; after driving my father's Mercedes and BMW...that's the type of car i prefer anyways

. About the MPGs; with the way i drive..i think i could hit that 32 mpg hwy number.

blco02 · Sep 17, 2014

They only got 19MPG? Surely we will be able to get more than that if we don't drive it as hard as they did - right?

REX-RACER · Sep 17, 2014

Ford took a whack at the challenge of creating a sporty fuel-sipper with the turbocharged four-cylinder Mustang SVO, which was available from 1984 through 1986. The market yawned. Fuel prices crashed, and anyway, we don’t buy pony cars for their efficiency.

Probably picking nits here but it was always my impression the reason Mustang SVO suffered in sales - and yes I remember them first hand as well as the oil embargo - was b/c the SVO came w/ a slightly higher price tag but offered ostensibly equal performance compared to the 5.0 v8 Mustang. While the performance of itself was something of an accomplishment, most people asked why they'd pay more for a turbo 4-cyl car that had slightly inferior performance but would likely require more costly maintenance ( at the time ) . . . and then an overwhelming majority of folks opted for the 5.0. Ostensibly it was pricing and it's quasi-exotic nature that doomed the original SVO.

At any rate, it's nice to see a more even handed review of the ecoboost car which I guess is what's to be expected. Some things to like, a few things could be better. Still kinda wish someone would review a "base" eb / M6 / PP car so we could get an impression of a pure driving experience. Perhaps that will come down the line? :shrug:

Old 5 Oh · Sep 17, 2014

"We saw 19 mpg overall, and you can probably expect low-to-mid-20s if you like to use your car as anything other than a nun’s taxi."

This is what I have been saying. The EB, real world, is not going to be that much better than the GT, and likely worse than the V6 despite being able to throw big EPA numbers. You have been warned, LOL.

Spartan · Sep 17, 2014

Old 5 Oh said:
"We saw 19 mpg overall, and you can probably expect low-to-mid-20s if you like to use your car as anything other than a nun’s taxi."

This is what I have been saying. The EB, real world, is not going to be that much better than the GT, and likely worse than the V6 despite being able to throw big EPA numbers. You have been warned, LOL.

They also had the fully loaded one with the PP and the 19" wheels. I mean they had EVERYTHING in it. It probably had max weight other then the spare tire.

Aipaloovik · Sep 17, 2014

Old 5 Oh said:
"We saw 19 mpg overall, and you can probably expect low-to-mid-20s if you like to use your car as anything other than a nun’s taxi."

This is what I have been saying. The EB, real world, is not going to be that much better than the GT, and likely worse than the V6 despite being able to throw big EPA numbers. You have been warned, LOL.

I don't see a similar remark on the fuel economy they saw running the GT through the same tests. Top Gear once tested a Prius against an M3 to prove that how you drive is a major factor in fuel economy. The M3 won on fuel economy. The first full tank of gas on my 2005 after I put the supercharger on it netted me 12.1 MPG. That was entirely because of how I drove it and was about half of the "real world" MPG I got once I resumed my old driving style.

I wouldn't waste a lot of concern on the numbers they got during a performance test. I think long term tests will be much more telling, particularly when properly compared to a long term GT test under similar conditions.

You may yet be proven right, but I'm not convinced by this one data point.

jeebuspwnz · Sep 17, 2014

blco02 said:
They only got 19MPG? Surely we will be able to get more than that if we don't drive it as hard as they did - right?

The plus side to a turbo is you can make a lot of power out of an engine by cramming more air into it than it can naturally suck in. The other plus side to this is, you might be making good power on a relatively small engine. So in "theory", you can get decent fuel economy. However, this is really only the case when the turbo is not spooled up. Once spooled, the increased heat and pressure requires cooling. Intercooling of the charge air is helpful, but the other excellent way to cool is with fuel. Forced induction cars naturally must run a richer (than their non-boosted counterpart) mixture while under pressure.

So yes, you can likely get decent MPG out of this engine if you keep your foot waaaaaay out of it. But since the motor is small, the car is heavy, and the turbo is tiny and designed to spool as soon as possible, you will be shooting a lot more fuel into the combustion chamber unless you drive like a grandma.

I have personally owned a number of turbocharged cars and they have NEVER, EVER, been kind to me at the pump.

Rex Grant · Sep 17, 2014

Hate to raise the weight issue again, but 3663 pounds for the EcoBoost is heavier than I expected. I suppose the performance package adds a few pounds with its extra equipment. Wish it were 100 pounds lighter.

REX-RACER · Sep 17, 2014

Rex Grant said:
Hate to raise the weight issue again, but 3663 pounds for the EcoBoost is heavier than I expected. I suppose the performance package adds a few pounds with its extra equipment. Wish it were 100 pounds lighter.

Has anyone heard what eb "base" car weighs vs the Premium?

Spartan · Sep 17, 2014

REX-RACER said:
Has anyone heard what eb "base" car weighs vs the Premium?

There's a thread somewhere with weights.

Suddueth13 · Sep 17, 2014

Not to mention the fact the the PP cars with the 3.55 rears will likely return slightly worse fuel economy than the standard cars, at least on the highway. The argument could really go either way around town though. Staying out of boost is the key. It's not that hard once you figure out how it drives.

On a different note, I'd almost guarantee that you could pick up a couple of tenths in the ET by shifting at 5500RPMs.

Car and Driver Review (EcoBoost)

Whiskey11

Kill ALL the Cones!

Smitty02

Member

TampaBear67

Well-Known Member

Spartan

Well-Known Member

CisternaChyli

Active Member

blco02

Member

REX-RACER

Well-Known Member

Old 5 Oh

Well-Known Member

Spartan

Well-Known Member

Aipaloovik

Well-Known Member

jeebuspwnz

Well-Known Member

Rex Grant

Member

REX-RACER

Well-Known Member

Spartan

Well-Known Member

Suddueth13

Well-Known Member

Similar threads