Don't expect the Ecoboost to meet those mileage numbers. I'd say it would be a stretch to see it match the mpg estimates for the V6. The 2.0 and 2.3 Ecoboost in other Ford models with vehicles of similar weight don't see the advertised EPA estimates for mileage. I think that realistically the EB 2.3 will see 18-19 around town and 25mpg with mixed driving. A new fill up and a complete highway trip may net you 29mpg if you can keep the speeds below 65mph.
Word is that the slight downgrade was due to revisions required to the intake manifold to allow it to fit under the new hood.
Full torque is available starting at 1500RPM.
The charge motion control valves and improved aero should help. I believe they have already said the mileage has been improved. But I would expect it to be a pretty minor increase as you indicated... probably 1-2mpg. But any improvement is icing on the cake if you ask me.
Exactly my point. The EPA numbers will beat the V6, but the real-world numbers will fall well short and will be closer to the V8. That's just how turbos roll.
Had forgotten about the CMCVs. Considering how (not) well they worked on 96-98 Cobras, it will be interesting to see what convinced Ford to give them another try. For me, if it gets a little better mileage with 435 HP, that's a good compromise. Others may find that removing the valves improves high-end air flow (at least that's what happened with the Cobras) and peak power might go up a bit without them. So much to learn!
I was kind of disappointed when I heard about the CMCVs returning after the 96-98 cobra performance, but then I read somewhere, I believe it was the Road and Track interview, that this is a totally different design.
