Ecoboost in GT territory with 3 simple mods

[Tamadrummer88]

In recent years, Owning anything less than a GT was an embarrassment. The older 4.0L couldn't even hold a candle to the GT or any other car in its class. Since 2011, I think the 3.7 has turned everything around and let people have an american icon with enough power to get you in trouble at a decent price. Now, its 2015, and Ford has brought out a smaller motor that makes more power and torque (on paper) than the outgoing V6 while getting better fuel economy (on paper) and people STILL feel the need to put down anyone wanting to get anything less than a GT. Just because tuning companies have shown that the Ecoboost can possibly hang with stock GT's with a few mods is no reason to put people wanting those same results for their car down. As they say in commercials: "Your results may vary."

Its never been a better time to be a mustang enthusiast. There's something to satisfy everyone. Quit putting other people down for what they want. Its their money, let them spend it as they see fit. In the end, the only opinion about your car that matters is YOU. No one else's.

Sponsored

 

[Darkrune]

Judging from the numbers being released so far from the aftermarket tuning companies, i think with just full cutback exhaust and a 93 octane tune, you'll probably look at a combined gain of 30RWHP and 70RWTQ.

Judging from past mustangs, a CAI would be almost useless as the stock airbox setup is pretty damn good already.

I think this is probably true until you upgrade the turbo. Then the stock box will see a bottleneck.

 

[Darkrune]

In recent years, Owning anything less than a GT was an embarrassment. The older 4.0L couldn't even hold a candle to the GT or any other car in its class. Since 2011, I think the 3.7 has turned everything around and let people have an american icon with enough power to get you in trouble at a decent price. Now, its 2015, and Ford has brought out a smaller motor that makes more power and torque (on paper) than the outgoing V6 while getting better fuel economy (on paper) and people STILL feel the need to put down anyone wanting to get anything less than a GT. Just because tuning companies have shown that the Ecoboost can possibly hang with stock GT's with a few mods is no reason to put people wanting those same results for their car down. As they say in commercials: "Your results may vary."

Its never been a better time to be a mustang enthusiast. There's something to satisfy everyone. Quit putting other people down for what they want. Its their money, let them spend it as they see fit. In the end, the only opinion about your car that matters is YOU. No one else's.

Also, it is about feel around a track too. People with turbo cars like that swell in power to get tickles. People in GT's seem to focus a lot on drag racing and sound. I love the V8 sound, but I love the turbo giggles. I am also more interested in road racing than straight lines. I am sure people in GT's will crank out HUGE HP cars that can no longer be viable for such things. Also with modding; I have learned in the past that if you mod your car into something that is a misery to own, it loses it's fun. I had a 2012 Evo X turbo swap, cams, you name it. I put down 450 AWHP and 350 LBs of torque. It was retarded fast. But it became costly to maintain and unfun to DD. I am no millionaire, so I only have on car at a time, so I got a BRZ. The RWD aspect of all the new mustangs with IRS makes it a contender. We all should remember that. So yes, ecobeasts and V8 folks will always bicker, but the truth is the 2015 mustang in either form is a foe to contend with.

 

[Obie]

In recent years, Owning anything less than a GT was an embarrassment. The older 4.0L couldn't even hold a candle to the GT or any other car in its class. Since 2011, I think the 3.7 has turned everything around and let people have an american icon with enough power to get you in trouble at a decent price. Now, its 2015, and Ford has brought out a smaller motor that makes more power and torque (on paper) than the outgoing V6 while getting better fuel economy (on paper) and people STILL feel the need to put down anyone wanting to get anything less than a GT. Just because tuning companies have shown that the Ecoboost can possibly hang with stock GT's with a few mods is no reason to put people wanting those same results for their car down. As they say in commercials: "Your results may vary."

Its never been a better time to be a mustang enthusiast. There's something to satisfy everyone. Quit putting other people down for what they want. Its their money, let them spend it as they see fit. In the end, the only opinion about your car that matters is YOU. No one else's.

 

[superblur]

The ignorance about this new turbo 4 is actually pretty funny. It seems like alot of the v8 guys are scared of this little 4 being faster when it quite possibly could with a few easy mods.

What will be the limit of how fast the ecoboost can go, in my opinion, will be the integrated exhaust and how well it can flow, injector size and if it can be upgraded, and the stock internals strength (which from the description of the engine seems to be pretty stout). If all of those issues work themselves out we could be looking at the little 2jz of 4 cylinders here which would be amazing.

 

[TNcoupe]

I want both. Buying a GT with PP this year for a track car and will probably trade my Focus DD in a couple years for an Ecoboost to DD after they work through any first year issues. Im old school because I think pony cars should have a V8 but every version has its place.I mean who doesnt want a good handling "lightweight" front engine RWD turbo car to DD on the curvy East TN mtn roads. When I do get an Ecoboost it will have an SVO badge on it somewhere.....

 

[basicwizz]

After reading all this, I can only wonder what would things have been like back in '85/'86 if the internet were what it is today. I can only imagine the SVO vs. GT online wars.

Personally I've loved the Mustang since 2002. I wasn't really into cars until about 2001, cars meant nothing to me, it was a tool to get me from point A to point B. Once I saw The Fast and The Furious (I know, insert ricer bashing comment here ______ ), that's when I started being interested in cars. The Mustang won me over. But as the years went by I still have never owned one. I'm hoping to change that soon. The one model that always appealed to me above all others, the one that felt like a dark horse, that quietly did it's thing as well as anyone else but didn't need the flash and flair - was the SVO. Now that a turbo 4 is coming back to the Mustang I'm beyond excited.

But really you can't go wrong with any model of Mustang from the new generation.

 

[Spartan]

You don't get that much better mileage then the GT when you factor in the fuel costs of 93 vs 87 Octane (if you are talking about keeping your HP/Torque/performance).

I ran the #s and after factoring in the fuel cost difference and the gallons bought, the EB gets something like an additional 21 miles give or take on the money spent per fill up.

Remember, that if you are keeping your HP/Torque in the EB you have to use 93 and that is about .50 cents on average higher then 87 octane. So for filling up an EB with 93, a GT saves around $6.00 per fill up by using 87. That extra $6.00 purchase an additional 2 gallons of fuel for the GT (at $3.00 a gallon here in this area where Premium is $3.50).

So for the same money spent, the GT purchases 17 gallons to your EB 15 gallons.

When you then factor in the mileage of 17 gallons with the GT highway and the EB mileage of 15 gallons, the difference is something like 21 miles total (using 27 highway GT, 34 highway EB): GT gets 459 miles on 17 gallons highway. EB gets 480 miles on 15 gallons highway.

Over the cost of a year, it's not much at all...something like $160 total if you filled up 1 time per week.

You aren't saving that much $$$ like you think you are unless you run 87 in the EB...just FYI.

 

[geokots]

You don't get that much better mileage then the GT when you factor in the fuel costs of 93 vs 87 Octane (if you are talking about keeping your HP/Torque/performance).

From what I just read on the Mustang brochure, the GT HP rating is also based on 93. I'm sure the lower octane hit is less than the EB but it's still based on 93.

 

[cosmo]

You don't get that much better mileage then the GT when you factor in the fuel costs of 93 vs 87 Octane (if you are talking about keeping your HP/Torque/performance).

I ran the #s and after factoring in the fuel cost difference and the gallons bought, the EB gets something like an additional 21 miles give or take on the money spent per fill up.

Remember, that if you are keeping your HP/Torque in the EB you have to use 93 and that is about .50 cents on average higher then 87 octane. So for filling up an EB with 93, a GT saves around $6.00 per fill up by using 87. That extra $6.00 purchase an additional 2 gallons of fuel for the GT (at $3.00 a gallon here in this area where Premium is $3.50).

So for the same money spent, the GT purchases 17 gallons to your EB 15 gallons.

When you then factor in the mileage of 17 gallons with the GT highway and the EB mileage of 15 gallons, the difference is something like 21 miles total (using 27 highway GT, 34 highway EB): GT gets 459 miles on 17 gallons highway. EB gets 480 miles on 15 gallons highway.

Over the cost of a year, it's not much at all...something like $160 total if you filled up 1 time per week.

You aren't saving that much $$$ like you think you are unless you run 87 in the EB...just FYI.

It's true that the EB might not be getting all that much better mpg versus the GT in preliminary drive tests, so we'll hafta watch that as time goes on. Some EB drive tests I've seen report higher MPG than listed, but that is the same as the GT as well so it might be a wash.

However when you factor in the cost savings of the initial investment as well as insurance premiums (depending on your insurance situation), the EB should still come in with a significant cost savings over the life of the vehicle.

 

[Tamadrummer88]

It's true that the EB might not be getting all that much better mpg versus the GT in preliminary drive tests, so we'll hafta watch that as time goes on. Some EB drive tests I've seen report higher MPG than listed, but that is the same as the GT as well so it might be a wash.

However when you factor in the cost savings of the initial investment as well as insurance premiums (depending on your insurance situation), the EB should still come in with a significant cost savings over the life of the vehicle.

This^

Also, in some areas, Premium is not much more expensive than regular. In Hawaii, where gas right now is still over $4/gallon average, premium is like 30 cents more expensive than regular.

 

[Spartan]

From what I just read on the Mustang brochure, the GT HP rating is also based on 93. I'm sure the lower octane hit is less than the EB but it's still based on 93.

It's something like 15 HP hit. The EB is something like 25 I believe.

However when you factor in the cost savings of the initial investment as well as insurance premiums (depending on your insurance situation), the EB should still come in with a significant cost savings over the life of the vehicle.

Most insurance companies, the 3 Mustang models are the same across the board. It's the type of car that shoots your premium up. You mention any sports car and then someone who is under 30 and your rates are going to be $$$$$$$.

Also, we're talking about the people in this thread that are modding their cars to get it near the GT. At that point, the cost savings are a lot less significant.

BTW I'm not bashing the EB in any way. I'm just trying to make sure information is out there for people to consider. When you add up savings and other things, some don't take into account everything.

 

[cosmo]

It's something like 15 HP hit. The EB is something like 25 I believe.


Most insurance companies, the 3 Mustang models are the same across the board. It's the type of car that shoots your premium up. You mention any sports car and then someone who is under 30 and your rates are going to be $$$$$$$.

Also, we're talking about the people in this thread that are modding their cars to get it near the GT. At that point, the cost savings are a lot less significant.

BTW I'm not bashing the EB in any way. I'm just trying to make sure information is out there for people to consider. When you add up savings and other things, some don't take into account everything.

Yeah, a turbo motor will suffer more greatly from a octane drop than a naturally aspirated engines in most cases. But on the flip side, it will also gain more from a performance tune. When it comes down to a modded vehicle, both the GT and Ecoboost will gulp gas similarly unless you get a larger turbo and delay boost and don't touch the boost unless you want it.



I'm 24, living in Dearborn MI, and the difference between an Ecoboost premium and a GT base is $80 per month average from the different insurance companies I've gotten. Clean record, not even a parking ticket, and I've graduated college with a degree. I'm told that the insurance around here is insane anyways because of living near Detroit as well as Michigan's no fault collision law, but that's at least my example and one of the reasons I'm leaning towards Ecoboost.

I'm all up for a debate regarding EB v GT, as long as it's a debate and not a bashfest. I'd say you're one of the good ones from what I've read.

 

[Tamadrummer88]

Yeah, a turbo motor will suffer more greatly from a octane drop than a naturally aspirated engines in most cases. But on the flip side, it will also gain more from a performance tune. When it comes down to a modded vehicle, both the GT and Ecoboost will gulp gas similarly unless you get a larger turbo and delay boost and don't touch the boost unless you want it.



I'm 24, living in Dearborn MI, and the difference between an Ecoboost premium and a GT base is $80 per month average from the different insurance companies I've gotten. Clean record, not even a parking ticket, and I've graduated college with a degree. I'm told that the insurance around here is insane anyways because of living near Detroit as well as Michigan's no fault collision law, but that's at least my example and one of the reasons I'm leaning towards Ecoboost.

I'm all up for a debate regarding EB v GT, as long as it's a debate and not a bashfest. I'd say you're one of the good ones from what I've read.

Wow. In HI we have a no fault law for insurance too. Im 26, 2 tickets and two accidents, and my premium for the Ecoboost would be about 429 every 6 months. A GT is 479 every 6 months. Mot much of a difference.

 

[cosmo]

Wow. In HI we have a no fault law for insurance too. Im 26, 2 tickets and two accidents, and my premium for the Ecoboost would be about 429 every 6 months. A GT is 479 every 6 months. Mot much of a difference.

An Ecoboost is about 870 every six months around here, while a GT is around 13-1400. Michigan insurance sucks.

Sponsored