Just how ECO is the Ecoboost?

[Spartan]

I have a question, on wether I should order the Eco PP or not. I am new to world of cars I. Terms of modding. I want to know how much the rear axel drive ratio effects the mpg of the car. So what's the difference between the 3.31 and 3.55? As in, what change can I expect to see in the car in terms of mpg difference, how it drives, and if this mod is Cheaper through the PP or to get it done aftermarket? Thank you!

Personally I would get the PP.

Ford is only release the EB and GT with the PP in UK/Europe.

To me, that is telling and says that Ford believes the best driving experience involves the PP settings and other features and feel that UK/European drivers expect a certain driving experience due to Audi/BMWs, etc and that the PP mimics that in some way.

The different between 3.31s and 3.55s is so minor in MPG.

But the things you get with the PP EB are bigger brakes, radiator, wheels, settings, etc. are not and there is no way you can get that aftermarket for that value.

COBB knows their way around a turbo motor and usually they include an "eco" tune which limits boost.

Yep reading up on this, it seems they have a nice dual setting of daily driving for more MPG and then a fun setting for raising hell. =)

Sponsored

 

[Zoink]

My EB sucks around town (usually dips to about 17 mpg) but I cant much complain about all-highway mileage. I just got back from a little roadtrip and saw 460 miles on one tank and 475 on the next, at 70 mph the whole way. Considering I usually only get 250-280 in city driving, thats not too bad.

On the last refill, the computer calculated 490 miles to empty. Maybe next trip I will hit 500. Hopefully by then I will have a tune and hopefully it will help mileage.

 

[Brent302]

We all faced (or will be facing) the huge decision between the big nasty 5.0 or the technically astonishing 2.3 Ecoboost. For the majority it came down to performance versus fuel costs. But, just how economical is the 2.3 and is it really worth it to sacrifice over 100hp? I decided to experiment and find out just how "eco" the Ecoboost really is.

This test really came about because, after buying my new Mustang, money became a bit tight and I needed to stretch a tank of gas as far as possible. At first this was a reason for deepest sorrow because it meant short shifts and keeping well out of the fun side of the boost gauge. But after a few days it quickly became a cool little game with the consumption meter keeping score.

My route through Mesa and Phoenix mixed a bit of city work with long stretches at 65 MPH on the freeways. To maximize efficiency the windows stayed up and the AC (regrettably) stayed off. The car in question is a 15 Ecoboost manual with a 3.15 rear end and optional 19 inch wheels with all season P Zeros. My general technique for hyper-miling the Mustang involved light throttle application and shifting around 2000 RPM. Like I mentioned earlier this is by far the least fun way to drive a Mustang. The engine really does turn into a typical four cylinder when the turbo is not force feeding it. But, like a typical four cylinder it returned some astonishing numbers. In city driving I was able to keep the car at about 25 MPG which is pretty darn respectable. Once I got on the freeway though the car essentially began pipetting fuel into the cylinders. I have been routinely seeing the car getting 38-40 MPG. I have gone nearly 400 miles on my last tank and still have about 60 miles of range left. My round trip to work is 34 miles and the car indicates that it only use 20-22 miles of range round trip.

So, in this humble old boys opinion yes go ahead and get over the V-8. The Ecoboost puts out 8/10ths of the performance with dramatically better economy. That GT power is only a tune and some bolt ons away...

Nice write up except for " That GT power is only a tune and some bolt ons away..."

Any car you dump money into you will get closer to another trims "Stock" power. You will also be diminishing your Eco gains with those bolt ons and a tune...like I said nice write up but the end was a witty jab for no reason.

 

[Fredness]

His money, his choices.
I'm going EB with mods for this very reason.
There will be no "diminished Eco"...

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

...like I said nice write up but the end was a witty jab for no reason.

I didn't read it as a jab. Lighten up.

Mpgs will very likely increase w/ modifications, both for the 2.3 and 5.0.

 

[COBB Tuning]

It'll be interesting to see what sort of mileage we get in the UK why the car is released next year. Our gallons are slightly larger so there's already an increase, our standard petrol is 95 octane and premium is 98 octane which should help too. I have a feeling Ford might detune the engine because of this though.

Getting an extra 20% MPGs just by taking the car to the UK must be nice! I'm also interested to see what happens with these cars. On the EcoBoost Fiesta, the USDM cars use Speed Density based tuning and cars from other regions are MAF based. The Focus ST uses the same strategy through all markets.
There probably won't be much of a difference in tuning based on the fuel differences. In America, we have to use different units and measurements than the rest of the world. Our octane rating measurements maintain that "have to be different" mentality. We use a system called Anti-Knock Index (AKI). The UK and most of the rest of the world use Research Octane Number (RON). Our 91 is pretty much your 95 and our 93 is close to your 98.

Kyle@COBB

Sponsored