Car and Driver Review (EcoBoost)

[Wildcat]

At least they managed to get better performance times. Still doesn't appear to be much faster than my 3V GT, and the real world mileage doesn't appear all that great unless you drive like grandma.

Sponsored

 

[Brent302]

At least they managed to get better performance times. Still doesn't appear to be much faster than my 3V GT, and the real world mileage doesn't appear all that great unless you drive like grandma.

Stock for stock I'm pretty sure a 3v GT will win Everytime

 

[Suddueth13]

^^^I'm not so sure about that. It would be great to see nontheless

 

[Brent302]

^^^I'm not so sure about that. It would be great to see nontheless

2010 with Track Pack. Compared to a EB PP

PERFORMANCE (*C/D*EST, 5-sp man):
Zero to 60 mph: 5.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.6 sec @ 104 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 151 mph

I'm sure lol maybe a 2005 barebones with 100k miles an EB PP will have a chance. This is the same thing that happened when the 3.7 came out. We all argued the numbers. We all talked down on the 4.6 but in the end the 4.6 stock for stock out ran the 3.7

 

[oyitsagreen]

2010 with Track Pack. Compared to a EB PP

PERFORMANCE (*C/D*EST, 5-sp man):
Zero to 60 mph: 5.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.6 sec @ 104 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 151 mph

I'm sure lol maybe a 2005 barebones with 100k miles an EB PP will have a chance. This is the same thing that happened when the 3.7 came out. We all argued the numbers. We all talked down on the 4.6 but in the end the 4.6 stock for stock out ran the 3.7

He is correct. I have dusted several New edge GTs W/ Bolt ons with my 3.7

However a stock 05-09 GT will still nose out a few tenths of a second on me.

I think the EB will give the 4.6ers a good run for their money!

 

[Brent302]

He is correct. I have dusted several New edge GTs W/ Bolt ons with my 3.7

However a stock 05-09 GT will still nose out a few tenths of a second on me.

I think the EB will give the 4.6ers a good run for their money!

I regretted trading in my 08 GT for my 3.7 everyday

 

[stilesg57]

Overall I'm underwhelmed.

But I will say this: given that they almost certainly had their foot in it THE ENTIRE TIME, I'm actually kind of surprised they got 19mpg out of it. When I fill a quarter tank in my Bimmer and track it, I get low teens. Driving normally? 27-31 depending on how much highway time on a particular tank. I bet the EB gets mid 20s out of the average tank spent commuting to work.

 

[Suddueth13]

2010 with Track Pack. Compared to a EB PP

PERFORMANCE (*C/D*EST, 5-sp man):
Zero to 60 mph: 5.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.6 sec @ 104 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 151 mph

I'm sure lol maybe a 2005 barebones with 100k miles an EB PP will have a chance. This is the same thing that happened when the 3.7 came out. We all argued the numbers. We all talked down on the 4.6 but in the end the 4.6 stock for stock out ran the 3.7

The difference with the 3.7 though is the torque. Stock the EcoBoost likely won't hit 5 seconds to 60 but I bet it could be damn close to 13.6 ET with the right driver shifting it right. The way the curves look on the dyno graph for it, I can see quite a bit of time being made with short shifting it at 5500RPMs. Same thing happened to the Mazdaspeed 3. Guys were gaining substantial time shifting at 5500RPMs instead of redline.

Once you start doing boltons, the EcoBoost will handily take 3 valves. In any event, every engine offered right now in the Mustang is wonderful and I'd be happy owning any of them.

 

[Brent302]

The difference with the 3.7 though is the torque. Stock the EcoBoost likely won't hit 5 seconds to 60 but I bet it could be damn close to 13.6 ET with the right driver shifting it right. The way the curves look on the dyno graph for it, I can see quite a bit of time being made with short shifting it at 5500RPMs. Same thing happened to the Mazdaspeed 3. Guys were gaining substantial time shifting at 5500RPMs instead of redline.

Once you start doing boltons, the EcoBoost will handily take 3 valves. In any event, every engine offered right now in the Mustang is wonderful and I'd be happy owning any of them.

If the 4.6 mods then it'll pull on the EB so that's an invalid point..Stock for Stock is the best way to be fair.

I think you're wrong. Shifting won't make up for the trap speed. The EB is 98mph and the 4.6 is 104. It's just not there. Come to terms with what the EB is or you'll run into the crap 3.7 owners did(I was one of them). Always chasing the 4.6.

 

[Whiskey11]

If the 4.6 mods then it'll pull on the EB so that's an invalid point..Stock for Stock is the best way to be fair.

I think you're wrong. Shifting won't make up for the trap speed. The EB is 98mph and the 4.6 is 104. It's just not there. Come to terms with what the EB is or you'll run into the crap 3.7 owners did(I was one of them). Always chasing the 4.6.

Also keep in mind that the EB has 255 wide summer tires... even if they are Pirelli P-Zeroes, they are still summer tires and 20mm wider than the 4.6L GT's ever came equipped with so that is another strike against the EB's performance numbers. Even out the tires and I think the number would be even more depressing for the EB.

In general, I'm displeased with the projected performance of the EB cars. They literally offer me nothing more than a refined interior and a rear alignment beyond thrust angle that I can play with... it would weigh slightly more, and have about the same power output. I doubt highly the IRS is going to be that huge of an advantage to really best my car mod for mod in autocross. I just don't see it happening.

 

[JoeySD]

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

Same here !!!!

 

[aspensilver]

1/4 mile runs have been 13.9 and 14.1 -- that is much higher than I expected. Seems much too slow for a performance oriented 2015 car! Could never spend the coin an EB costs for that kinda performance, would be way too sad.

 

[zen25]

New BMW M4 has produced much better performance with turbocharged engine compared to older E92 V8 M3. The new M4 demolishes the older one on track and drag. If Turbo works well for BMW, it should do well for Ford too.

I have a feeling the new 2015 Focus ST might get better time than EB despite having smaller engine.

 

[w3rkn]

I doubt highly the IRS is going to be that huge of an advantage to really best my car mod for mod in autocross. I just don't see it happening.

C'mon man... you can't be serious.

 

[EXP Jawa]

C'mon man... you can't be serious.

Sure he could. If the course is pretty smooth, then a live axle can be dialed in to work very well. Frankly, people have been sorting the issues out of Mustang rear suspension for a long time, and depending on the class, you could potentially do a lot with it. I'm not sure about the specifics of what STX allows, I've been away from auto-X for a long time.

I don't interpret his comments to say that IRS is of no value. Rather, that dollar for dollar (or pound for pound), switching to an IRS isn't necessarily a better value than other potential mods one could make to the live axle set up. Considering that IRS adds overall weight (though cuts unsprung) and a lack of surface irregularities, for this narrow focus usage, I'd be inclined to believe him. But its still highly dependent on overall setup, driver preferences, class, etc.

Sponsored