Eco VS. V6

[113]

All the 5.0 guys be like opcorn:

Sponsored

 

[EcoSwag1990]

When he said more comfortable that was a comparison of performance package vs non performance package ride not the V6

 

[phil1336]

Oh heck yeah OP you are my champ.

thehunterooo: You are (my) Champ......13D Spoiler Delete!

 

[cbrookre]

Good review as far as magazine reviews go. But this will surely bring the most predictable commentary possible

LOL! And both sides are TOTALLY RIGHT!!!

 

[Bay1Stang]

I wish some magazines would get some of their top drivers to clock some times for the V6. There's so few of us and so far it looks like the best stock times have been 5.5 0-60 with 3.15 gears as well as 14.2 quarter mile with 3.15 gears.

 

[phil1336]

I wish some magazines would get some of their top drivers to clock some times for the V6. There's so few of us and so far it looks like the best stock times have been 5.5 0-60 with 3.15 gears as well as 14.2 quarter mile with 3.15 gears.

If those number hold up, they are "Great"! For a Daily Driver, you need more? A Race Red Convertible gets enough attention from the Police just standing still at a traffic light, no less in motion.

 

[wildsailor]

I wish some magazines would get some of their top drivers to clock some times for the V6. There's so few of us and so far it looks like the best stock times have been 5.5 0-60 with 3.15 gears as well as 14.2 quarter mile with 3.15 gears.

The issue is that a 3.55:1 rear axle ratio should give better 'real world' acceleration times but the engine RPM seems to dictate a shift to 3rd gear right about 55 MPH or so. With the 3.15 gear you can stay in second right to 60 MPH giving a better time. Of course the best 0-60 is not necessarily what is best for 1/8 or 1/4 mile times.

At least this is what I have seen on Youtube and none of those videos had the 3.7L. The Performance Package EB and GT's are posting 0-60 MPH times of .5 to 1 full second off the published times but in the videos they both need a shift to 3rd before getting to 60 causing a delay...a 1/2 second is not much of a delay for an additional shift). I figure the V6 is in the same boat. I have not even done a 0-60 with my car yet (EBM with the 3.31:1) since it is too new so mine may need the shift to 3rd as well.

I bet the best times 0-60 would be with a 3.55:1 axle and an automatic trans shifting itself.

 

[phil1336]

The issue is that a 3.55:1 rear axle ratio should give better 'real world' acceleration times but the engine RPM seems to dictate a shift to 3rd gear right about 55 MPH or so. With the 3.15 gear you can stay in second right to 60 MPH giving a better time. Of course the best 0-60 is not necessarily what is best for 1/8 or 1/4 mile times.

At least this is what I have seen on Youtube and none of those videos had the 3.7L. The Performance Package EB and GT's are posting 0-60 MPH times of .5 to 1 full second off the published times but in the videos they both need a shift to 3rd before getting to 60 causing a delay...a 1/2 second is not much of a delay for an additional shift). I figure the V6 is in the same boat. I have not even done a 0-60 with my car yet (EBM with the 3.31:1) since it is too new so mine may need the shift to 3rd as well.

I bet the best times 0-60 would be with a 3.55:1 axle and an automatic trans shifting itself.

As a Daily Driver a ordered mine with the 3:15 Standard Axle. Saved the extra $400 and wanted a quieter Highway experience coupled by theoretically improved MPG too. Got spoiled with my Ford C-Max Hybrid averaging 40 MPG City & Highway.

 

[Bay1Stang]

If those number hold up, they are "Great"! For a Daily Driver, you need more? A Race Red Convertible gets enough attention from the Police just standing still at a traffic light, no less in motion.

I completely agree with you man.

My point is there really isn't any definitive testing out there for the V6 whereas the eco and GT are well tested. I love the performance of my car but I'd like to know in the back of my head really what is actually achievable in stock form.

I have 3.55 myself because I do 90% city driving.

 

[Rough Hollow Man]

In post #17 above, Mr.EB-Defender, EcoSwag1990, thinks that the reviewer wasn't referring to the V-6 when he stated, "Smoother, more comfortable and cheaper, these are advantages to the V-6 model, especially in base trim". Don't we all love how some on this forum cannot have anything said that's positive about the V-6 without taking issue! Love their consistency, but the reviewer made the quote above about the V-6 , NOT the difference between the performance optioned EB and the non-performance EB. The reviewer is comparing the base V-6 to the EBPP. We do love their enthusiasm though...

 

[phil1336]

Ford got quite surprised on the response to the 2015 Mustang Base V6 Coupe & Convertible. Dismissed as a Rental Car Only offering, they have been one of the biggest and quickest selling Stock Mustang vehicles sold! The Marketing Department tried their best to make the EB 2.3 the (new) Darling but the old tried and true 3.7 V6 keeps selling despite being designated to the trash bin of Mustang history. Like Mark Twain stated, "The news of my recent passing has been a bit exaggerated". Too early for Ford to write the Obituary for its V6 in regards to the Mustang.

 

[wildsailor]

As a Daily Driver a ordered mine with the 3:15 Standard Axle. Saved the extra $400 and wanted a quieter Highway experience coupled by theoretically improved MPG too. Got spoiled with my Ford C-Max Hybrid averaging 40 MPG City & Highway.

I understand completely. Not quite near C-Max territory but my Focus SE sedan was 32-34 MPG in mixed city/highway back and forth to work. Now I am at 28 in the same drive cycle with the Mustang. Not bad but still something to get used to.

I completely agree with you man.

My point is there really isn't any definitive testing out there for the V6 whereas the eco and GT are well tested. I love the performance of my car but I'd like to know in the back of my head really what is actually achievable in stock form.

I have 3.55 myself because I do 90% city driving.

This is Ford's fault actually. The cars get loaned out for testing and if Ford only sent out the usual fleet of what we see driven and evaluated then that is due to a lack of V6 cars. However, even with that said there was one Canadian reviewer at the press event in San Diego that talked about the V6 (showed it in the video) but did not offer any drive results. His review was of the GT though so not every journalist seems to have had seat time in all the offerings.

Ford got quite surprised on the response to the 2015 Mustang Base V6 Coupe & Convertible. Dismissed as a Rental Car Only offering, they have been one of the biggest and quickest selling Stock Mustang vehicles sold! The Marketing Department tried their best to make the EB 2.3 the (new) Darling but the old tried and true 3.7 V6 keeps selling despite being designated to the trash bin of Mustang history. Like Mark Twain stated, "The news of my recent passing has been a bit exaggerated". Too early for Ford to write the Obituary for its V6 in regards to the Mustang.

The V6 is not going anywhere anytime soon. The rumor of its impending demise are pure conjecture. It is likely the 'value leader' of the three engines only because it is the cheapest engine of the three. The 2.3L GTDI 4-cyl is probably an expensive little thing, especially considering the tech included in it and that up until March they were all built in Valencia Spain and shipped over here on a slow boat. The Coyote is even more expensive than the 2.3L even when you consider all the add on stuff for the Ecoboost. So the V6 is the cheapest and easiest to build of the three engines and that gives the V6 car the lowest price point.

 

[Spartan]

When he said more comfortable that was a comparison of performance package vs non performance package ride not the V6

If you read it in context, what he's saying is (in order of the sentence in bold below) if you are talking about the EBPP vs the V6, the V6 has a smoother engine then the EB, more comfortable ride due to the non-pp trim and it's cheaper.

With more power, better fuel economy and the optional performance package, it appears the Ecoboost is a no brainer over the V6. But it’s not that simple. Smoother, more comfortable and cheaper, there are advantages to the V6 model, especially in base trim.

Also if you look at the +/- section, that is reinforced in the V6+ section where it says "smoother engine". It's a fact that the NA engines of the V6/V8 are just smoother.

 

[Rough Hollow Man]

Oh so true Phil1336...for 50 years Mustangs have had naturally aspirated six cylinder engines in their corral. Since your also a fan of Twain, he also said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme". As to our present iteration of the six cylinder, the quite capable 3.7 V-6..."Everything old is new again"! OK fellas, get your popcorn ready...here it comes..."You coulda had a V-8"...or the more shrill and insistent cry..."Look at me, we're the future, EB is the Best, Look at Me!". All the while the V-6s keep rolling along fuss free and selling! Popcorn ready...

 

[phil1336]

I`m of that "age" where I don`t respond well to peer pressure or having the "latest" technology. I admit, I remember when there were pay phones and when Phone Booths had (doors) when ones conversation was once a (private) matter, not blah, blah, blah, to share with anyone nearby while shooting an asinine "selfie" of one`s self. So, at peace with my (dumb phone), not caring whatsoever about SYNC 3 or 4 or even 5, the antiquated 3.7 V6 has enough power and testosterone for this old fool. I prefer Regular Gasoline over Premium and that suits the V6 needs with no issue. I will admit I was leaning towards the EB 2.3 (until) I found out that it was not available as a Convertible in "Base" Trim. Since I wasn`t interested in Leather Interior, (Bingo), a Base V6 Convertible with the Optional 051A Package & Spare Tire was all that I needed or wanted. Now, if those missing Tonneau Cover Caps will.......lol

Sponsored