EcoBoost sales vs GT

[STex]

Lower price will sell them. However, if buying for better MPG, beware. Unless you drive it real conservatively and stay out of the turbo, you will not get the MPG advertised. And who would buy one and stay out of the turbo?

If budget is not an issue, I would highly recommend the 5.0. Shoot, I would just save till budget was not an issue.

Sponsored

 

[Taneras]

Well, I read through the comments and in conclusion I'm still planning on purchasing a V6, maybe with the 51A package and maybe with some other options even though I'm not a rental company...just me. Or maybe just the base model.

Why? I can afford a GT but don't want to waste my money. Way too much HP than what I need, expensive, and insurance would be astronomical. Plus the gas mileage is historically horrendous. Next I'm not comfortable with buying a brand new design being the EB. Maybe it has a track record in other cars but the Mustang? None. Others feel different and I say go for what you want.

So why the V6 for me? It comes with many standard options that I like, and nothing more that I don't. I don't like leather so nix that. It has at least 300HP...do I really need more to drive to work and go on vacations? Not. Oh wait..but what about racing that guy next to me? Ain't going to happen...I'm a little older than that. The V6 has been tried and proven true. A rock solid engine. The automatic - same. I loved my rental V6 so I do understand.

I'm also in no hurry. I'll mosey on into a dealer next year around June and see what they have. If I need to order I will with an X Plan. No biggy. I just don't need the best, the fastest, or the one with the most options. I want simple, classic, easy. Just like my first car..a 65 Mustang 289 with automatic..that's all it had and I loved that car back in the early 80's. That's what I want to go back to now - nice smooth ride, good gas mileage, some but not too much get up and go, and yet all of the spirit of the Mustang. That's me. Your experience may vary.

I don't think gas and insurance (unless you're really young) are big factors when it comes to choosing a V6 over a GT. The gas milage will likely amount to only ~$20.00 a month extra (assuming a 12k miles a year) and I can't imagine the insurance will be a lot higher for someone whose "a little older than that". I think my insurance went up like 9 or 10 bucks a month, keeping the same coverage, going from my 2004 V6 to my 2013 GT.

I can understand not needing the extra power, though. If you don't need it then why spend the extra cash.

 

[5.0 Coyote]

Guess I'm going to be different and get a GT. LOL! My buddies would castrate me if I brought home a four banger.

You have got some smart Buddies!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[wilkinda65]

Lower price will sell them. However, if buying for better MPG, beware. Unless you drive it real conservatively and stay out of the turbo, you will not get the MPG advertised. And who would buy one and stay out of the turbo?

If budget is not an issue, I would highly recommend the 5.0. Shoot, I would just save till budget was not an issue.

Bingo.... my 2013 F150 w/ 3.5L Ecoboost got horrible gas mileage if doing anything over 65 MPH. When I used a OBDII adapter I was showing in constant boost once I got over 65 MPH.

When I inquired how Ford got 24 HWY MPG they informed me it was in a climate controlled environment with truck running at 48 MPH.... :eyebulge::headbonk::frusty:

Granted, in town I got much better fuel mileage than on the highways here in Florida.

 

[Steve-OO]

my 2013 F150 w/ 3.5L Ecoboost got horrible gas mileage if doing anything over 65 MPH

I'll second that. I rented an Escape for a trip to Austin, TX last fall. Averaged 21 mpg over 2100 miles. It was just ridiculous- my Excursion will do 19 mpg.

Sidenote - I made the same trip last spring in an Explorer Limited. Averaged 16 in that pig.

 

[Steve-OO]

Well, I read through the comments and in conclusion I'm still planning on purchasing a V6,

That's great - buy what you want and be happy.

But I'm curious - why hang around an enthusiast site like this if you're just going to buy a rental car?

 

[5.0 Coyote]

That's great - buy what you want and be happy.

But I'm curious - why hang around an enthusiast site like this if you're just going to buy a rental car?

I am even more curious,why would you hang around a Mustang enthusiast site and buy a Mustang 4 Banger anything, at least he is buying a 6 cylinder Mustang,and another point WHY would you even put money down on an order form without any HP,MPG,Weight specs,if he is happy good for him!

 

[Spartan]

Well, I read through the comments and in conclusion I'm still planning on purchasing a V6, maybe with the 51A package and maybe with some other options even though I'm not a rental company...just me. Or maybe just the base model.

Why? I can afford a GT but don't want to waste my money. Way too much HP than what I need, expensive, and insurance would be astronomical. Plus the gas mileage is historically horrendous. Next I'm not comfortable with buying a brand new design being the EB. Maybe it has a track record in other cars but the Mustang? None. Others feel different and I say go for what you want.

So why the V6 for me? It comes with many standard options that I like, and nothing more that I don't. I don't like leather so nix that. It has at least 300HP...do I really need more to drive to work and go on vacations? Not. Oh wait..but what about racing that guy next to me? Ain't going to happen...I'm a little older than that. The V6 has been tried and proven true. A rock solid engine. The automatic - same. I loved my rental V6 so I do understand.

I'm also in no hurry. I'll mosey on into a dealer next year around June and see what they have. If I need to order I will with an X Plan. No biggy. I just don't need the best, the fastest, or the one with the most options. I want simple, classic, easy. Just like my first car..a 65 Mustang 289 with automatic..that's all it had and I loved that car back in the early 80's. That's what I want to go back to now - nice smooth ride, good gas mileage, some but not too much get up and go, and yet all of the spirit of the Mustang. That's me. Your experience may vary.

The track record of the EB will be the same in the Mustang. An engine is an engine. I'd trust this engine considering how much they probably put into it and the fact that it's the 50th anniversary AND it's the complete redesign.

You can probably trust this engine more then the V6 or V8.

 

[Spartan]

No surprise there. But consider who is on this forum. We are the hardcore. The dealers are ordering EBs for the general public, and the people who "just want a Mustang" are going to be happier with the low price and more than adequate power of that engine. I think you have to really want a GT to spend an extra 25% just to get that engine.

In the Fox days, when the choice was the 225 HP V8 or the wimpy 88 HP 2.3, a lot of "normal" people bought V8s. That's not really necessary anymore. The V6 is a super engine for "normal" life, and the EB will be a good one, too. I don't think a lot of people feel like they need 440 HP (my guess as to what "more than 420 HP" will mean.)

What's interesting is I never considered the Mustang till this redesign. This is a modern day Mustang with European styling. In some shots, from the side, 3/4 views it really looks like a BMW/Aston/Ford had a baby.

When they added the EB engine, it sold me even more because I wanted something that looked amazing but also got pretty decent MPG but was still fast. I was thinking like 250 hp.

When I saw the #s, I was shocked at the torque and HP. The EB is going to be an amazing car to drive and F-U-N.

 

[Fox9350]

When I inquired how Ford got 24 HWY MPG they informed me it was in a climate controlled environment with truck running at 48 MPH.... :eyebulge::headbonk::frusty:

.

I kind of always assume that the MPG is assuming a perfectly level and flat surface with no wind (aside from typical wind resistance against the moving vehicle) at a constant speed (whatever the most fuel efficient spot is between 45-65 mph) with no traffic and moderate /cool temperature. Essentially perfect conditions. There are way too many variables otherwise and I always assume the car in the real world will do a little worse than the rated mpg if I drive very conservatively.


As for the GT it will get way outsold, but that's not a bad thing. GT buyers will want to be in the more exclusive company and when you see another GT out there you'll appreciate it.

I'm just glad the base models are something to be proud of looks wise. The HP has been there for a few years now, but this is the best looking base they've yet made IMO, and the closest looking to the GT as well. Very subtle differences.

 

[Chameleon]

I will say I am very impressed with the Ecoboost. Lower weight, near 50/50 and ample toque. If it responds to mods as well as the Focus ST, it should be a blast to drive.

 

[Five Oh Brian]

As the old saying goes: "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

I predict that history will repeat itself. Go back 30 years to the 1984-86 Mustang SVO. Turbocharged 2.3L 4 cylinder in the best handling Mustang ever built at the factory. Good fuel economy, great handling, decent acceleration. However, the 5.0L V8 offered in those years was similarly priced (actually just a little lower) and modifying was easier/cheaper. After 3 model years, the SVO was dead and the 5.0L became the only performance variant available. The market spoke and it said "no 4 cylinders in my musclecar" !!!

Now I should mention that I bought an '88 Mustang LX brand new with the standard 2.3L 4 cylinder. Hated it and traded it in for a brand new '89 Mustang 5.0L. I also owned an '88 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe with the intercooled 2.3L Turbocharged 4 cylinder (with 5 speed manual, Bosch ABS, and 3.73 limited slip axle all from the factory). The Turbo Coupe was built on the same chassis as the Mustang. It was an entertaining car, but still not a V8 musclecar. I haven't owned a non-V8 Mustang since then, and can't imagine buying anything other than a V8 in the future.

I am thrilled that Ford will offer a variety of powertrains in the '15 Mustangs, though. More variety means that more will be sold to a wider audience and betters the odds that Ford continues building Mustangs indefinitely and affordably. So, thank you to all of you that will buy Mustangs in all of its different trim levels!

 

[TampaBear67]

As the old saying goes: "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

I predict that history will repeat itself. Go back 30 years to the 1984-86 Mustang SVO. Turbocharged 2.3L 4 cylinder in the best handling Mustang ever built at the factory. Good fuel economy, great handling, decent acceleration. However, the 5.0L V8 offered in those years was similarly priced (actually just a little lower) and modifying was easier/cheaper. After 3 model years, the SVO was dead and the 5.0L became the only performance variant available. The market spoke and it said "no 4 cylinders in my musclecar" !!!

Now I should mention that I bought an '88 Mustang LX brand new with the standard 2.3L 4 cylinder. Hated it and traded it in for a brand new '89 Mustang 5.0L. I also owned an '88 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe with the intercooled 2.3L Turbocharged 4 cylinder (with 5 speed manual, Bosch ABS, and 3.73 limited slip axle all from the factory). The Turbo Coupe was built on the same chassis as the Mustang. It was an entertaining car, but still not a V8 musclecar. I haven't owned a non-V8 Mustang since then, and can't imagine buying anything other than a V8 in the future.

I am thrilled that Ford will offer a variety of powertrains in the '15 Mustangs, though. More variety means that more will be sold to a wider audience and betters the odds that Ford continues building Mustangs indefinitely and affordably. So, thank you to all of you that will buy Mustangs in all of its different trim levels!

Actually, The History of the 2.3 Liter Inline 4 Cylinder goes back further in the Mustang's History than the SVO. The 2.3 Liter 4 Cylinder can trace it's history as far back as 1974 when it was first introduced in the 1974 Mustang II and continued to be offered in the Fox Bodied 1979 Mustangs where it gained it's first Turbo application. Ford continually improved the original 2.3 Liter Turbo from 1979, also offering the Turbo 4 in the Thunderbird begining in 1983, until Ford Special Vehicle Operations decided to take their Lightest Sportiest Model and Created the Intercooled and Turbocharged 1984 SVO Mustang. They still continued to improve the Turbo 2.3 in the SVO for 1986, but because SVO Sales didn't meet expectations due to it's high price tag It was decided that the SVO Engine should be moved to the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe for 1987 because of it's More Expensive Market Segment where the 2.3 Turbo reached it's pinical at 215 Horsepower. Not bad for a 4 Cylinder at the time when the V-8 Mustang was only producing 225 Horsepower. A 12 year run can hardly justify that the public didn't want a 4 Cylinder in their Pony Car. Obviously Many People did.

I also had an 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. With it's 2.3 Liter Intercooled Turbo 4, 5 Speed Manual, ABS Brakes, and Electronically Adjustable Ride Control that car was The Most Fun to Drive Car I've Ever Owned. It was Well Balanced, Fast (for it's time) and Completely Entertaining. I personally am Ecstatic that Ford is introducing an All New 2.3 Liter Turbo 4 back in the Mustang Lineup, Especially considering this time around it has gained almost 100 Horsepower. I think Many People will be Pleasantly Surprised at how Fast and Agile this car is going to be and Unlike History I think the Turbo 4 will Outsell the V-8 GT's and V-6's too. I know that's the Model I Want.

 

[MikeAZ]

Actually, The History of the 2.3 Liter Inline 4 Cylinder goes back further in the Mustang's History than the SVO. The 2.3 Liter 4 Cylinder can trace it's history as far back as 1974 when it was first introduced in the 1974 Mustang II and continued to be offered in the Fox Bodied 1979 Mustangs where it gained it's first Turbo application. Ford continually improved the original 2.3 Liter Turbo from 1979, also offering the Turbo 4 in the Thunderbird begining in 1983, until Ford Special Vehicle Operations decided to take their Lightest Sportiest Model and Created the Intercooled and Turbocharged 1985 SVO Mustang. They still continued to improve the Turbo 2.3 in the SVO for 1986, but because SVO Sales didn't meet expectations due to it's high price tag It was decided that the SVO Engine should be moved to the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe for 1987 because of it's More Expensive Market Segment where the 2.3 Turbo reached it's pinical at 215 Horsepower. Not bad for a 4 Cylinder at the time when the V-8 Mustang was only producing 225 Horsepower. A 12 year run can hardly justify that the public didn't want a 4 Cylinder in their Pony Car. Obviously Many People did.

I also had an 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. With it's 2.3 Liter Intercooled Turbo 4, 5 Speed Manual, ABS Brakes, and Electronically Adjustable Ride Control that car was The Most Fun to Drive Car I've Ever Owned. It was Well Balanced, Fast (for it's time) and Completely Entertaining. I personally am Ecstatic that Ford is introducing an All New 2.3 Liter Turbo 4 back in the Mustang Lineup, Especially considering this time around it has gained almost 100 Horsepower. I think Many People will be Pleasantly Surprised at how Fast and Agile this car is going to be and Unlike History I think the Turbo 4 will Outsell the V-8 GT's and V-6's too. I know that's the Model I Want.

I owned a yellow Mercury Capri Turbo RS variant of the 1979 Mustang (liked the looks of the Capri better than the Mustang that year). The engine was a constant problem in that model year.

Ford/Mercury was unable to deliver the customer turbo orders until April 1979. I don't remember all the issues involved but there were constant delays due to unavailable parts and production line changes.

My Capri always ran hotter than it should have and the Turbo lag was very noticeable. The engine only ran for 80K miles before a valve when through one of the pistons. The engine performed much better after a rebuild with the addition of a larger aftermarket radiator and an oil cooler. Unfortunately during the rebuild, the distributor shaft was very slightly bent during installation and the car would shear the pin in the shaft at unpredictable intervals. It took a couple of years before I found a dealer that was able to identify the cause of that issue.

I've been gun shy on manufacturer built turbochargers ever since. Ford has a lot of experience with them now, but their first attempt in a production car in 1979 cannot be called a success.

Here is an article from a 1979 Mustang owner - my experiences were similar to his (my first new car, etc.): http://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1979-mustang-turbo-the-old-all-new-mustang/

 

[RMS550]

to continue with this story, I've owned a 1979 Mustang Cobra, 2.3 L with a turbo and I must say that I've never had any problem with that car. In fact it was a lot of fun driving it. Okay I got one recall from Ford, concerning the turbo, but that was quickly handled at the dealer shop.

Sponsored